The Church is No Longer Ours

[CaptainM]

What do you think of this?

And this...

[CaptainM]

The enthusiasm for Joseph Smith is not an evident thing on this forum.

viewtopic.php?t=70666

[Good & Global]

As to the original OP, I wonder if the "Church" was ever "ours" as members. It was just something we started to say.

In the recent past, there were 2 main corporations associated with the church that Joseph established:
• The “Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Corporate Sole)
• “The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric”

Then we had the group of worshipers known as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (a trademark).

During the Covid shutdown, the church re-incorporated the 2 main corporations into one: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Corporate Sole). Nelson is the sole corporation owner. He owns it all. This can be verified by going to the Utah State corporation registration site.

The group of worshipers and the main corporation now have the same name. Since the corporate changes, when we use the term “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, we are talking about a corporation not a group of worshippers (trademark). How does this now make sense to say “I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”? That would be saying that we are a member of the corporation known as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. In reality, we are not a member of that corporation. We don’t have a corporate position in that organization.

When we use the phrase “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, we are NOW referring to a corporation NOT to a group of worshiping people.

So in otherwords, RMN owns all the money being the sole controller of the sole corporate and now he owns all the people in it. As the two corporations merging into one corporation was so important right before people needed to get all their shots. Not warning them of the economic, social and health disasters to come but making sure he was in control of it all.

This is very much like what the pope system does.

[Ymarsakar]

Isn't this what humans and mortals wanted? A big savior/daddy to tell them what to do?

Lock em down harder, daddy!

As to the original OP, I wonder if the "Church" was ever "ours" as members. It was just something we started to say.

In the recent past, there were 2 main corporations associated with the church that Joseph established:
• The “Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Corporate Sole)
• “The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric”

Then we had the group of worshipers known as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (a trademark).

During the Covid shutdown, the church re-incorporated the 2 main corporations into one: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Corporate Sole). Nelson is the sole corporation owner. He owns it all. This can be verified by going to the Utah State corporation registration site.

The group of worshipers and the main corporation now have the same name. Since the corporate changes, when we use the term “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, we are talking about a corporation not a group of worshippers (trademark). How does this now make sense to say “I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”? That would be saying that we are a member of the corporation known as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. In reality, we are not a member of that corporation. We don’t have a corporate position in that organization.

When we use the phrase “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, we are NOW referring to a corporation NOT to a group of worshiping people.

So in otherwords, RMN owns all the money being the sole controller of the sole corporate and now he owns all the people in it.

This is very much like what the pope system does.

[Obeone]

You are mistaken.

The laying on of hands sequence is well documented. I can trace mine back to the Three witnesses and Joseph himself.
After the priesthood is given, keys can be conferred or activated by voice. For example when a couple is sealed in the temple, no hands are laid on them. But the greatest blessings and powers in existence are sealed upon them by voice of the sealer.

All of the original and subsequent twelve in the church can trace their ordination and laying on of hands back to Joseph Smith. Each apostle receives all the keys of the kingdom when ordained an apostle. But those keys are dormant until he is authorized by the senior apostle, or until he becomes a senior apostle himself.

I didn't say they weren't ordained to the priesthood and then to their specific office. Of course, we can all trace our priesthood back, but all offices require an ordination, and they were only ordained to the apostleship.

And no, each apostle does not receive all the keys of the kingdom when ordained to be an apostle. No where in our history were they ordained as PSRs. If they already had all the keys, why didn't they say that instead of claiming that JS gave them the authority in his "last charge".

The last charge narrative is their claim to authority, not anyone else's. Why would they even make the claim, if they knew they already had the keys. They knew full well they didn't have the keys to be PSR's. President Marks even told them at Sideny's trial that if they excommunicated him, they would be left without a PSR and that it takes a PSR to ordain another PSR.

Why would the apostles tell BY that it would require a revelation to reform the First Presidency, if they already knew they had the keys?

Why did BY tell the saints that the 12 would lead them? Why didn't he say that they had the keys to reform the First Presidency? He didn't say it because he knew he couldn't say it.

They were learning as they went. (For example Lamanites were baptized with the fire and with the Holy Ghost, and "they knew it not.")
Revelation is needed to do anything new. This was new at the time. And the reason they were able to do it is because they did have the keys.

Even the Lord Himself told them that they had the authority and power equal to that of the First Presidency:

 D&C 107:22 
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

[Good & Global]

I agree with you on revelation and have no horse in this race between you and Shawn Henry but looking to see what comes up.

I do wonder however if this is the case why even have Q15?

Why not just have like Christ did in his church Q12 +1? That is in more scriptural than 15 apostles. Even in Joseph Smith's day it seemed to function as a 12 in terms of apostles not 15

Revelation is needed to do anything new. This was new at the time. And the reason they were able to do it is because they did have the keys.

Even the Lord Himself told them that they had the authority and power equal to that of the First Presidency:

 D&C 107:22 
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

[Obeone]

I agree with you on revelation and have no horse in this race between you and Shawn Henry but looking to see what comes up.

I do wonder however if this is the case why even have Q15?

Why not just have like Christ did in his church Q12 +1? That is in more scriptural than 15 apostles. Even in Joseph Smith's day it seemed to function as a 12 in terms of apostles not 15

First Presidency is one President and 2 councilors (who are usually also apostles).
Jesus did not need councilors at the time.
The Lord created the First Presidency. It is in D&C, so it is perfectly "scriptural."

Are you or were you a member of the Church?

[Good & Global]

I agree with you on revelation and have no horse in this race between you and Shawn Henry but looking to see what comes up.

I do wonder however if this is the case why even have Q15?

Why not just have like Christ did in his church Q12 +1? That is in more scriptural than 15 apostles. Even in Joseph Smith's day it seemed to function as a 12 in terms of apostles not 15

First Presidency is one President and 2 councilors (who are usually also apostles).
Jesus did not need councilors at the time.
The Lord created the First Presidency. It is in D&C, so it is perfectly "scriptural."

Are you or were you a member of the Church?

Am and in D&C if we are to believe the Lord created a first presidency - I am not seeing where it says that they should be apostles and for at least 10 years after the church was organized, the first presidency were not apostles. It wasn't until towards the very end we see any hint of those in the first presidency ever being an apostle.

In fact Amasa Lyman being dropped from that position is a good example of the 12 being restricted to that number when Orson Pratt was readmitted to the quorum of 12. Several years later Amasa Lyman was then made an apostle again but was stripped of it this time for teaching contrary doctrine of the time. Hard to find his exact words so who knows what it was about (but Joseph F Smith did make him an apostle again after Lyman's death) In any case aside from all the drama that involved the early brethren they did seem to maintain to only 12 with first presidency populated by non apostles presumably to preserve only having 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amasa_Lyman

[ransomme]

In most important questions, regarding the keys and the ordinances, they cannot lead the Church astray, or God will remove and replace them.

That is a guarantee.

Can you describe the process of HOW he removes or replaces them?
While guaranteed, this makes no sense.

Does he physically come to them and say hit the showers you are done? Or are you thinking God kindly kills off some old guy?

By that logic, how do we know all the prophets that have died weren't removed by the Lord due to leading the church astray? Do we know how long they were originally supposed to live so we could objectively say they weren't taken early?

This makes no sense.

Also if they keep living but are wicked and evil like the people who had the priesthood (priests of Noah, those we say somehow entered the great apostasy) how are they even removed? How exactly would you remove the Q15 if they were all evil and in on it together?

There seems to be a lot of assumptions based on what we want to hear with this and so we imagine that is how it would happen. But I would like to hear exactly HOW it would be done without circular logic.

Good questions.

God has a lot of tools available to Him. All the ones you mentioned and more.

How do we know? Spirit, and revelation.

Priests of Noah? Different era. This dispensation is very different. This one is the last, and it was decreed by God it will not be destroyed by an apostasy. Why? God will remove or soften all the heads that impede the progress of His Kingdom on the earth. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. This is the one where the hand of the Lord will be revealed, culminating with every knee bowing and every tongue confessing.

The problem with all of you "church-has-apostatized" crowd is that you do not understand this key difference. This is the last dispensation. It will not, and cannot be destroyed by an apostasy, because in this one God will clean house -- all those who oppose His Kingdom.

So general apostasy and falling away of the whole Church in this final dispensation is IMPOSSIBLE, for this reason. It is not in the program, and God will not allow it.

Individuals may fall away and be removed, but God will not allow His Kingdom to be destroyed by an apostasy in this dispensation. PERIOD.

So those who claim the Church is apostate, are the apostates themselves!

Very ironic. But so true.

Except for the fact that the scriptures foretell differently.

My personal experience is that my friends around the globe that are true seekers have come to similar conclusions independently. And they strive leave Babylon and become Zion.

Versus those who are true believers. They think that they are in Zion, yet they cleave to worldly things and idols. Some seek money, some praise, and some pride.

[ransomme]

You are mistaken.

The laying on of hands sequence is well documented. I can trace mine back to the Three witnesses and Joseph himself.
After the priesthood is given, keys can be conferred or activated by voice. For example when a couple is sealed in the temple, no hands are laid on them. But the greatest blessings and powers in existence are sealed upon them by voice of the sealer.

All of the original and subsequent twelve in the church can trace their ordination and laying on of hands back to Joseph Smith. Each apostle receives all the keys of the kingdom when ordained an apostle. But those keys are dormant until he is authorized by the senior apostle, or until he becomes a senior apostle himself.

I didn't say they weren't ordained to the priesthood and then to their specific office. Of course, we can all trace our priesthood back, but all offices require an ordination, and they were only ordained to the apostleship.

And no, each apostle does not receive all the keys of the kingdom when ordained to be an apostle. No where in our history were they ordained as PSRs. If they already had all the keys, why didn't they say that instead of claiming that JS gave them the authority in his "last charge".

The last charge narrative is their claim to authority, not anyone else's. Why would they even make the claim, if they knew they already had the keys. They knew full well they didn't have the keys to be PSR's. President Marks even told them at Sideny's trial that if they excommunicated him, they would be left without a PSR and that it takes a PSR to ordain another PSR.

Why would the apostles tell BY that it would require a revelation to reform the First Presidency, if they already knew they had the keys?

Why did BY tell the saints that the 12 would lead them? Why didn't he say that they had the keys to reform the First Presidency? He didn't say it because he knew he couldn't say it.

They were learning as they went. (For example Lamanites were baptized with the fire and with the Holy Ghost, and "they knew it not.")
Revelation is needed to do anything new. This was new at the time. And the reason they were able to do it is because they did have the keys.

Even the Lord Himself told them that they had the authority and power equal to that of the First Presidency:

 D&C 107:22 
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

You do realize that the scriptures you quoted disagree with your position. The presidency and the 12 are two different quorums, but the usurper, aka BY, assumed the position and essentially combined them into one.

And currently we have a President who has publicly announced that he has sworn secret oaths and has never publicly denounced them. He is not alone, as many of the GAs have also done such.

[Obeone]

Good questions.

God has a lot of tools available to Him. All the ones you mentioned and more.

How do we know? Spirit, and revelation.

Priests of Noah? Different era. This dispensation is very different. This one is the last, and it was decreed by God it will not be destroyed by an apostasy. Why? God will remove or soften all the heads that impede the progress of His Kingdom on the earth. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. This is the one where the hand of the Lord will be revealed, culminating with every knee bowing and every tongue confessing.

The problem with all of you "church-has-apostatized" crowd is that you do not understand this key difference. This is the last dispensation. It will not, and cannot be destroyed by an apostasy, because in this one God will clean house -- all those who oppose His Kingdom.

So general apostasy and falling away of the whole Church in this final dispensation is IMPOSSIBLE, for this reason. It is not in the program, and God will not allow it.

Individuals may fall away and be removed, but God will not allow His Kingdom to be destroyed by an apostasy in this dispensation. PERIOD.

So those who claim the Church is apostate, are the apostates themselves!

Very ironic. But so true.

Except for the fact that the scriptures foretell differently.

How do you explain away the fact that it is "the last dispensation" and that His "kingdom is coming forth for the last time?"

[Obeone]

You do realize that the scriptures you quoted disagree with your position. The presidency and the 12 are two different quorums, but the usurper, aka BY, assumed the position and essentially combined them into one.

How do you explain away the scripture that the twelve "form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents"?

And currently we have a President who has publicly announced that he has sworn secret oaths and has never publicly denounced them. He is not alone, as many of the GAs have also done such.

He has not publicly denounced them because he did not make them publicly. I am sure he denounced them privately, or he would not be where he is now.

As for whether he is a servant of the devil: I can feel the Spirit of God with him, therefore I know that his errors are honest. And God forgives honest errors. So should you. And if you do not, God will judge you with the same unjust judgment you judged Nelson. And you will not like it. Believe me.

[Shawn Henry]

How do you explain away the scripture that the twelve "form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents"?

The entire Seventy and also a Stake High Council are equal in authority, but the D&C also states that is the First Presidency that presides, and despite them being equal, the D&C also says that the 12 are subject to the First Presidency.

By your logic, the Nauvoo Stake High Council should have taken the leadership rather than the 12. The 12 didn't have authority within the stakes of Zion, but the President Marks did.

Also, according to the D&C, the First Presidency was still intact after the death of Joseph and Hyrum, so the 12 were still subject to Sidney Rigdon.

Why do you only reference the D&C when it suits your beliefs, but disregard it when it doesn't? Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

[Obeone]

How do you explain away the scripture that the twelve "form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents"?

The entire Seventy and also a Stake High Council are equal in authority, but the D&C also states that is the First Presidency that presides, and despite them being equal, the D&C also says that the 12 are subject to the First Presidency.

By your logic, the Nauvoo Stake High Council should have taken the leadership rather than the 12. The 12 didn't have authority within the stakes of Zion, but the President Marks did.

Also, according to the D&C, the First Presidency was still intact after the death of Joseph and Hyrum, so the 12 were still subject to Sidney Rigdon.

Why do you only reference the D&C when it suits your beliefs, but disregard it when it doesn't? Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

When the President is dead the First Presidency is no more. Then the Twelve have the duty and authority to take over.
Otherwise, if your "logic" holds, then the two counselors in the First Presidency should have the power to vote out the prophet, but they can't.

Also if the First Presidency is in the wrong, the Twelve have the duty and the authority to remove it. Why? Because they have all the keys of the First Presidency in suspension, which are automatically activated when the First Presidency is no more either via death or transgression.

It is a perfect system. The Lord is the author of it.

 D&C 107:82 
82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

[Shawn Henry]

When the President is dead the First Presidency is no more.

This is a tradition established decades later you are trying to retroactively insert into the narrative.

The saints at the time were familiar enough with the D&C.

"And in case of the absence of one or both of those who are appointed to assist him, he has power to preside over the council without an assistant; and in case he himself is absent, the other presidents have power to preside in his stead, both or either of them."

Death is definitely an absence.

You also attribute 107:82-84 to the wrong 12.

79 And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.

These 12 are the High Council, who all have to be High Priest. The 12 traveling Elders did not have to be High Priest and were not on the council.

If it's all out of accordance with how the D&C mandates it, then it is far from a perfect system.

[Obeone]

When the President is dead the First Presidency is no more.

This is a tradition established decades later you are trying to retroactively insert into the narrative.

The saints at the time were familiar enough with the D&C.

"And in case of the absence of one or both of those who are appointed to assist him, he has power to preside over the council without an assistant; and in case he himself is absent, the other presidents have power to preside in his stead, both or either of them."

Death is definitely an absence.

You also attribute 107:82-84 to the wrong 12.

79 And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.

These 12 are the High Council, who all have to be High Priest. The 12 traveling Elders did not have to be High Priest and were not on the council.

If it's all out of accordance with how the D&C mandates it, then it is far from a perfect system.

You are confused.

The Twelve have the same power as the First Presidency, according to the Lord. Therefore the twelve have the power and authority to lead the Church.
When Sydney apostatized, the Twelve had the power to remove him. Which they did.

[Atrasado]

I agree with you on revelation and have no horse in this race between you and Shawn Henry but looking to see what comes up.

I do wonder however if this is the case why even have Q15?

Why not just have like Christ did in his church Q12 +1? That is in more scriptural than 15 apostles. Even in Joseph Smith's day it seemed to function as a 12 in terms of apostles not 15

First Presidency is one President and 2 councilors (who are usually also apostles).
Jesus did not need councilors at the time.
The Lord created the First Presidency. It is in D&C, so it is perfectly "scriptural."

Are you or were you a member of the Church?

Am and in D&C if we are to believe the Lord created a first presidency - I am not seeing where it says that they should be apostles and for at least 10 years after the church was organized, the first presidency were not apostles. It wasn't until towards the very end we see any hint of those in the first presidency ever being an apostle.

In fact Amasa Lyman being dropped from that position is a good example of the 12 being restricted to that number when Orson Pratt was readmitted to the quorum of 12. Several years later Amasa Lyman was then made an apostle again but was stripped of it this time for teaching contrary doctrine of the time. Hard to find his exact words so who knows what it was about (but Joseph F Smith did make him an apostle again after Lyman's death) In any case aside from all the drama that involved the early brethren they did seem to maintain to only 12 with first presidency populated by non apostles presumably to preserve only having 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amasa_Lyman

Actually, Joseph, Oliver, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris were ordained apostles. Joseph and Oliver were ordained apostles by Peter, James, and John. I'm not sure when David and Martin were ordained, but from what I've read they were. Perhaps that's why the Lord asked the three witnesses to help in the selection of the Quorum of the Twelve.

[ransomme]

You do realize that the scriptures you quoted disagree with your position. The presidency and the 12 are two different quorums, but the usurper, aka BY, assumed the position and essentially combined them into one.

How do you explain away the scripture that the twelve "form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents"?

And currently we have a President who has publicly announced that he has sworn secret oaths and has never publicly denounced them. He is not alone, as many of the GAs have also done such.

He has not publicly denounced them because he did not make them publicly. I am sure he denounced them privately, or he would not be where he is now.

As for whether he is a servant of the devil: I can feel the Spirit of God with him, therefore I know that his errors are honest. And God forgives honest errors. So should you. And if you do not, God will judge you with the same unjust judgment you judged Nelson. And you will not like it. Believe me.

He announced them publicly in his autobiography and other PUBLICations. That is public is it not?

Why is it that I should believe you? And what judgement did I make about Russell?

Honest errors...that have maimed and killed. Good have mercy on us all.

My honest assessment of Russell is that he is changing doctrine, moving temple doctrine towards heavenly mother (feminist version), hides tithing money from members, aligns himself and his corporation with Babylon, is not worried about being used as an idol as Wendy put it "emulate Russell", speaks to add as of we were children, his peacemaker speech was elementary and childish, etc.

Can you help me find a good fruit?

Is it so bad to desire an actual leader who would actually expound on the scriptures, would call evil to repentance, and more?

[Ymarsakar]

Desire an actual leader? As a son of god, I don't actually need mortal leaders any more.

The whole point of the 2nd coming is that we will no longer be ruled over by petty humans and their tyrannical squabbles.n

[Thinker]

With respect and kindness to believers of the LDS institution, I think there is a major disconnect between the average, believing member and a lot of leadership. If I'm right in that suspicion, I think time will make that clearer. Quick example, recently saw a family member palling around with a true blue Mormon wearing a pretty vocal conservative take shirt on a hot button social issue. And I just thought to myself "brother, if you really think those 15 leaders you revere would appreciate you vocally expressing that view your shirt is expressing, I don't know what to tell you. How can you not see the push from the top to be quiet and not make a scene on social issues?". That's a middle-aged, middle-income True Blue Mormon. What happens when the hammer comes down and the revelation is given telling members to accept modern social trends and modern progressive gender ideology? Will you just accept it because in your mind you belong to the true church that can't go astray, and you'll stand by that even if it means making a clear, absolute 180 change on social issues that you feel passionate about?…

Yeah, I think a lot of members turn a blind eye to what is inconvenient or inconsistent morally or otherwise regarding church leaders. And frankly it seems most don’t really care to question anything - not just because deep down as with any cult, questioning leaders is a big no-no… but also they are following the profit and becoming more concerned with profits/money/materialism.

My main point is that leaders seem to be carefully & gradually turning up the heat so nobody notices being boiled to spiritual death. Very gradual & subtle portrayal of evil disguised as good & vice versa. And so many blindly follow the profit without question.

I don’t mean to make light of this at all. Deep down, most members sense that the cult has encompassed their lives - socially, financially, psychologically etc, & to give all that up - even if God asks it - is no easy decision!

[Ymarsakar]

The "cult" as you see it, is actually their mental shackles. The false doctrine is in the mirror. Their worst enemy is themselves.

With respect and kindness to believers of the LDS institution, I think there is a major disconnect between the average, believing member and a lot of leadership. If I'm right in that suspicion, I think time will make that clearer. Quick example, recently saw a family member palling around with a true blue Mormon wearing a pretty vocal conservative take shirt on a hot button social issue. And I just thought to myself "brother, if you really think those 15 leaders you revere would appreciate you vocally expressing that view your shirt is expressing, I don't know what to tell you. How can you not see the push from the top to be quiet and not make a scene on social issues?". That's a middle-aged, middle-income True Blue Mormon. What happens when the hammer comes down and the revelation is given telling members to accept modern social trends and modern progressive gender ideology? Will you just accept it because in your mind you belong to the true church that can't go astray, and you'll stand by that even if it means making a clear, absolute 180 change on social issues that you feel passionate about?…

Yeah, I think a lot of members turn a blind eye to what is inconvenient or inconsistent morally or otherwise regarding church leaders. And frankly it seems most don’t really care to question anything - not just because deep down as with any cult, questioning leaders is a big no-no… but also they are following the profit and becoming more concerned with profits/money/materialism.

My main point is that leaders seem to be carefully & gradually turning up the heat so nobody notices being boiled to spiritual death. Very gradual & subtle portrayal of evil disguised as good & vice versa. And so many blindly follow the profit without question.

I don’t mean to make light of this at all. Deep down, most members sense that the cult has encompassed their lives - socially, financially, psychologically etc, & to give all that up - even if God asks it - is no easy decision!

[Good & Global]

Joel Osteen visited Salt Lake City leadership and learned from the mormons.

He got his holding up a bible monologue that he does in his shows from Bednar at BYUI or vice versa.

Bednar used to use the Book of Mormon but he use to do this at the devotionals. I found it so odd when seeing Bednar do this at the time but then was amazed when I saw Joel Osteen years later doing it as part of his services. Prosperity gospel has its patterns.

[Christianlee]

Joel Osteen visited Salt Lake City leadership and learned from the mormons.

He got his holding up a bible monologue that he does in his shows from Bednar at BYUI or vice versa.

Bednar used to use the Book of Mormon but he use to do this at the devotionals. I found it so odd when seeing Bednar do this at the time but then was amazed when I saw Joel Osteen years later doing it as part of his services. Prosperity gospel has its patterns.

Billy Graham did that long before those two.

[Shawn Henry]

It is in D&C, so it is perfectly "scriptural."

Is the D&C perfectly scriptural? God provided 3 witnesses for the BoM who witnessed spiritually by seeing an angel.

Can you name God's witnesses for the D&C? Why did he not follow the Law of Witnesses with the D&C?

One of the things the Lord told the saints in 1829 was that some revelations were from God, some from man, and some from the devil.

The Church of Christ never had a First Presidency. The First Presidency was not formed until Christ removed his name from the church in 1834 and they became the Church of Latter Day Saints.

[Bronco73idi]

It is in D&C, so it is perfectly "scriptural."

Is the D&C perfectly scriptural? God provided 3 witnesses for the BoM who witnessed spiritually by seeing an angel.

Can you name God's witnesses for the D&C? Why did he not follow the Law of Witnesses with the D&C?

One of the things the Lord told the saints in 1829 was that some revelations were from God, some from man, and some from the devil.

The Church of Christ never had a First Presidency. The First Presidency was not formed until Christ removed his name from the church in 1834 and they became the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Your standard is biased, let’s hear your standard against all the individual books of the Bible