Potential changes forthcoming

[endlessQuestions]

Any more details on any of these? Either way, if true, most wouldn't be announced in GC.

My feeling has been that either the church is keeping an extra tight lid on the changes, or this will be a conference that returns to the status quo of the last 50 years. None of the rumors in the board has had multiple witnesses attached to it, and the principle list came from an excommunicated fellow who may or may not have eyes and ears at church headquarters.

[JK4Woods]

My experience has been the less leaks... the bigger the news/ announcement.

We’ve had many ward boundary changes while living in the same house. A couple years ago, the ward had grown huge (again), and everyone kinda expected another boundary change. But this time, not a peep from any of the High Council (wives). No whispering at Bunco or book clubs. Even Bishop’s wives had zero news.

Low and behold! The Stake was divided, a new one created and all boundaries changed. A big coup for the Stake Presidency keeping it under wraps.

Every time previously, the rumor mill kind of prepared members for a change.

Anyway... I love big changes. And hope for a lot more.

Shake us out of our comfort zones...

[endlessQuestions]

My experience has been the less leaks... the bigger the news/ announcement.

We’ve had many ward boundary changes while living in the same house. A couple years ago, the ward had grown huge (again), and everyone kinda expected another boundary change. But this time, not a peep from any of the High Council (wives). No whispering at Bunco or book clubs. Even Bishop’s wives had zero news.

Low and behold! The Stake was divided, a new one created and all boundaries changed. A big coup for the Stake Presidency keeping it under wraps.

Every time previously, the rumor mill kind of prepared members for a change.

Anyway... I love big changes. And hope for a lot more.

Shake us out of our comfort zones...

I agree, and I hope you're right. This has been by far the most interesting year to be a member of that long named church in my lifetime.

[Alaris]

I heard my sister told my mother that missions will be different lengths where the missionary can choose.

[topcat]

I heard my sister told my mother that missions will be different lengths where the missionary can choose.

I just had two missionaries over to my house a couple days ago and they both reported that they have heard through the grapevine that each Sister missionary and Elder will be given the opportunity to serve either 18 months or two years. I texted a missionary who is in the MTC right now and he said that he hadn't even heard that rumor. So it sounds like it's under wraps.

[brianj]

I heard my sister told my mother that missions will be different lengths where the missionary can choose.

I just had two missionaries over to my house a couple days ago and they both reported that they have heard through the grapevine that each Sister missionary and Elder will be given the opportunity to serve either 18 months or two years. I texted a missionary who is in the MTC right now and he said that he hadn't even heard that rumor. So it sounds like it's under wraps.

Or it's a rumor some people have heard and other people haven't heard.

[EdGoble]

This is a list of potential changes that may be forthcoming, possibly as early as April GC according to sources with contacts at the COB - thought I'd post it for discussion...

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

[oneClimbs]

It seems to me that the church is bit by bit weeding out certain things that have been more Pharisaical stumbling blocks rather than blessings.

It is no coincidence to me that we started Come Follow Me at this time where we are being heavily exposed to the Pharisees and theor reactions to Jesus’ teachings as these changes are coming.

Think of all the things we do that are too often used as virtue signalling rather than for God. Garments have become one of those things, not to dissimilar to the Pharisees lengthening the tassles of their garments. People have all these rules about them and if someone isn’t wearing them the way someone else thinks then their spirituality comes into question.

It wouldn’t suprise me at all if they said, “Garments are now only for the temple, your covenants protect you, not cloth.”

That said, I don’t mind wearing the garment daily. I go to the gym every morning in my gym clothes, shower, and put the garment on. As I do, I repeat the meaning of each symbol in my mind as a little mini ritual. I find it personally meaningful and it brings the temple into my day. However, I could still do the same with regular clothes. Either way, I would not be disturbed, there are far weightier matters and whatever changes are coming this is where they will ultimately point us. Less scripted, more inspired, less church, more home.

There’s a lot I could be critical about, but I’m too distracted by the good I see.

[WikiUp]

I anticipate there will be some deletion of scripture or at least an alteration in meaning. I am referring to scriptures that say anything to the effect that non caucasion skin color relates to curses pronouced because of the disobedience of an ancestor. I believe everything relating to this will be removed from all church teachings. Maybe not at this next GC, but sometime soon.

Does this mean that Mormon, Moroni and Joseph Smith included false doctrine in the Book of Mormon?

Now that's a slippery slope. What else is false doctrine in the Book of Mormon?

Isn't the concept of "deletion of scripture" troubling at the very least?

[Col. Flagg]

This is a list of potential changes that may be forthcoming, possibly as early as April GC according to sources with contacts at the COB - thought I'd post it for discussion...

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

[thisisspartaaa]

This is a list of potential changes that may be forthcoming, possibly as early as April GC according to sources with contacts at the COB - thought I'd post it for discussion...

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Except you didn't cite the source originally.

And Bill did more than just "share" what has been discovered. His website is proof of attempting to tear down individuals and the institution - direct and open opposition. Approach is everything and more than what you describe above.

[Col. Flagg]

This is a list of potential changes that may be forthcoming, possibly as early as April GC according to sources with contacts at the COB - thought I'd post it for discussion...

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Except you didn't cite the source originally, which was disingenuous and a testament to your character and motive on these boards.

And Bill did more than just "share" what has been discovered. His website is proof of attempting to tear down individuals and the institution - direct and open opposition. Approach is everything and more than what you describe above.

I've been a member of this forum for 13 years... how about you? I think most know my character and so you can save the insults which reveals your own true character. Bill became alarmed and disturbed over what he had learned regarding the truth about church history and was upset and even irate over the level of deception employed by the church in order to maintain and gain membership. I'm pretty upset about it myself and when you feel betrayed and deceived by an institution you've devoted your entire life to, it does something to you. If you prefer to remain ignorant to many of the troubling and dare I say highly disturbing aspects of church history, don't start reading the essays the church has quietly buried on its website which it has said nothing about to the general membership or the dozens of other shorter essays it has penned as well which used to be 'anti-Mormon' lit just a few years ago.

[topcat]

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Except you didn't cite the source originally, which was disingenuous and a testament to your character and motive on these boards.

And Bill did more than just "share" what has been discovered. His website is proof of attempting to tear down individuals and the institution - direct and open opposition. Approach is everything and more than what you describe above.

I've been a member of this forum for 13 years... how about you? I think most know my character and so you can save the insults which reveals your own true character. Bill became alarmed and disturbed over what he had learned regarding the truth about church history and was upset and even irate over the level of deception employed by the church in order to maintain and gain membership. I'm pretty upset about it myself and when you feel betrayed and deceived by an institution you've devoted your entire life to, it does something to you.

It's difficult for those who mistake authority for truth, instead of vice versa.

Most idolaters, including myself for many, many years, believe as a sacred truth that authority (as in the nebulous "keys" held by the apostles) is the #1 factor in determining truth. If I could "blame" Jesus, it's His fault (wink, wink to Jesus, who would no doubt appreciate this next statement), because He is the one who said, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (DC 1:38).

This is veritas. But what is not easily discerned is the meaning of "servants".

Jesus, of course, is speaking of those duly sent by Him, i.e., TRUE messengers who are eyewitnesses of His divinity AND who have been "chosen" and "sent" on a specific errand/ mission AND whom are delivering words He commands to be spoken.

What WE in the Church (and by "we" I mean the mainstream, active church members) have done is conflate Joseph Smith's divine calling and qualification as a true messenger with subsequent presidents / apostles of the Church down to the present day. But there is zero justification that they are eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord who have been commanded by Him to say certain things.

And yet, we mainstream members equate Pres Nelson, as the latest figurehead, with the standard of Joseph Smith.

Such an equation is preposterous when one stops to think about it.

Even right now, any mainstream member and even ardent defender of the institution (like BrLenox or DrTanner) must necessarily and miserably fail to find any evidence that Pres Nelson or any living apostles is chosen and sent by God, or that they are eyewitnesses. Not. One. Shred. Of. Evidence. Can. Be. Quoted.

Because there is none.

And yet, the conflation exists. Which has the effect of elevating what these "impostors" utter to the mind and will of God, and which causes posters like Sparta above to get vicious in personal attacks on your character because why? Because you have attacked somebody (the apostles) who in very reality are on the LEVEL WITH GOD.

After all, "whether by mine own voice or.....it is the same."

But Sparta, what if, my good brother, they are not eyewitnesses? And for the sake of thinking glass half full, let's assume they are good men who mean well, but are just innocently deceived as to what authority they actually have due to the traditions of their fathers.

If they are just regular men, like you and me, who love Christ and believe they speak for Christ because of their priesthood office, then that should help you understand ALL, and I mean ALL of the "Geez, I don't know why the Church did that" scenarios through the decades!

The simple explanation as to why things have changed so much, and to why doctrine and ordinances have changed, and why there was institutional racism, and removal of the doctrine (the Lectures on Faith) from our canon in 1921 without a vote, and why there is flagrant censorship going on now, why there's a dark cloud of oppression of the members who can't ask or express real concerns or questions (like Bill Reel and many others), why there has been a centralization of power into SLC (which would make Wash DC envious) whereas DC 107 clearly teaches that each stake high council is equal in authority to the First Presidency, and Q of the 12 and to the 70, etc., why the BoM was totally neglected until the 1950's, why the Church was incorporated and made a subject to the "god" of the US government, why there is no transparency to the financials of the church or probably negative growth rate of the Church, why abortion-loving, Constitution-hating socialists like Mitt Romney are supported openly by the apostles, why the Church spends less than a few percentages of it's annual income on helping the poor and afflicted (and when it does there are press releases to its alms are known to the world), or TODAY's announcement reversing the "revelation" from a few years ago that said the children of gays could not be baptized and the parents were called "apostate", etc., etc.

The list goes on and on.

The point is ALL of that nonsense and contradiction to the Scriptures and God's will makes TOTAL SENSE if the men running things are just men, mostly corporate leaders who bow to their corporate master, the president of the corporation, who bows to his god, the United States government.

The pretense is "authority" or "keys."

But I ask, what if you strip away the pretense? What if they stopped saying anything about their "supposed" authority?

What would they be left with? Their talks (which we are about to be treated to this weekend), about 99% of the content can accurately be described as pep talks to live a better life, or philosophies of men mingled with Scripture v. eternal and sublime oracles flowing from the mouthpiece of God.

[sevenator]

This is a list of potential changes that may be forthcoming, possibly as early as April GC according to sources with contacts at the COB - thought I'd post it for discussion...

1. Church trying to make room for members to partake of Coffee and Tea Insignificant, really. There was an article years ago in Body and Fitness Magazine that discussed the fact that paper filters (which weren't a thing back in the day) remove the harmful things (caffeine notwithstanding) about which our missionaries have felt to lecture potential converts for decades (tannic acids, etc.). If you think LDS are fanatic about what goes into their bodies, spend some time reading bodybuilding and extreme fitness type blogs and forums. They wouldn't make or back such statements lightly. Besides, the latest "energy drinks" are far worse, by several measures of comparison.
2. Having the Garment worn inside the temple only Interested by this. Don't really have an opinion but curious as to what the reasoning behind such a change would be.
3. To revamp the Missionary system making Service Missions and/or Local Missions prominent This has already been happening to an extent.
4. Decentralize the financial responsibilities of the Church geographically. Not sure what this means, exactly. Most things seem to have been becoming MORE centralized.
5. Women will be given significant increased roles (Women giving blessings to be formally seen as approved), recent change for Mothers of Young Children to serve as ordinance workers for example of a small change heading that direction. Not sure what all this would entail, but Women giving blessings would be a deal-breaker for many. There is a window that this could fit through, but it's a narrow one.
6. Increase dramatically in visible charitable giving to outside charities and outside humanitarian efforts This seems to be in line with the 'marketing campaign' that the Church has been doing for the last few years in an effort to convince people that we're really "OK". "Mormon helping hands." I don't personally care for it, but I don't really have a problem with it. Depends largely on the charity and/or humanitarian organizations. If they publish that they're donating to the Clinton Foundation or the U.N., there will not be a nice reaction from the rank and file.
7. Changes to the office/mode of operation of Patriarch being discussed Will there again be a "Patriarch of the Church"? Curious.
8. Heavenly Mother will be given a significantly increased role in the conversation and theology within correlated Mormonism. Don't like this. Much more than the acknowledgement of Her existence is treading on very hallowed thin ice.
9. Significant changes made to ensure Bishops and Stake Presidents receive significant training. (Anything from multiple weeks of in-depth training to even a full-time trained clergy in regards to Bishops and Stake Presidents) Maybe this would alleviate some of the "I grew up in Utah, therefore I got this and I am a better Bishop/Stake President than any of you could ever be" attitude.
10. RS General Presidency continually has its visibility increased and effort made to add value to their voices and the voice of women. (while maintaining the top 15’s own authority and nepotism to ultimately lead the Church) OK. Whatever.
11. Create a group of women that would act similarly to the quorums of Seventy (travel and be involved in committees and have a voice in decision making at levels lower than the top 15) Great. Call it the Relief Society General Board, or something similar.
12. Age for women going on missions to be lowered to 18 as well or men moved back up to 19 to make them equal in this regard. Silly.
13. Separate Marriages from Sealing to allow a couple to be married publicly and sealed immediately afterward in a separate act. This has been discussed for a long time now, due to same-sex marriage stuff. Joseph Smith reportedly stated that this should be how it goes, anyway, though I have not independently verified that.
14. Additional Policy adjustments to protect the Church’s public image in Sex abuse cases. So long as protecting the Church's public image doesn't cross the line of further abusing or marginalizing the victims.
15. I was missing a #15 in the audio but will add it here – You're going to see further adjustments to the scriptures to remove sections of language from the D&C, heading etc. and or add in language to headings ect. to confront the growing evidence against the former claims of the Church and a growing discomfort with our overreaching. Meh. If you're relying on the headings, you're missing the point, anyway.
16. The Ward Library and the calling of Librarian eliminated in areas that have quality access to technology. Good.
17. Adjust callings that have room to not require Priesthood to allow for female leadership (Ex: Sunday School Presidency) Sunday School President has never been what I've viewed as an important calling in my lifetime. Maybe it was at one time...
18. Do away with or control who speaks in Fast and Testimony Meeting Our bishop(ric) already requests that testimonies be kept to "one to two minutes"...long enough to say "I know this Church is true" and sit back down. I'll reserve further comment for now.
19. Allow equivalent aged Girls to pass the Sacrament where the congregation lacks adequate priesthood. "Adequate priesthood" includes Melchizedek Priesthood holders. There is no reason to go down this road. If the lack is severe enough, those who bless the sacrament can also pass it. This would neither be a hardship, nor a time concern.
20. Remove multiple cultural boundaries imposed as Mormonism but which are acknowledged as American culture and unnecessary. (Ex: allowing a wider range of instruments used in Church meetings) Our music "program" sucks. I know that can largely depend on where you are in the world, but my son is currently a music major (voice) in college here in the Southern U.S. and sings in a lot of different choral and solo settings in other denominations' services (he's still active LDS) and I've gotten to see and hear the role that really good music plays in worship services. Not talking rock bands here, but traditional 'mainstream' services. Recall also Gladys Knight saying to Gordon B. Hinckley: "We have to talk about the music" and GBH nodding and saying "I know".
21. A New Handbook of instruction is coming Good.
22. Temple Recommend bar-codes will be connected to a photo so the uses of recommends by someone other than who the recommend belongs to can be thwarted. This should 100% be the very top of the list and should have been implemented long ago.
23. Young Adult/Older Teen service Projects away from home that give a young member a significant experience making the world better but also connected directly to the Church. A mini service mission per se Sounds good.
24. There are now concrete discussions occurring asking how we move towards more inclusivity towards LGBTQ members. This is potentially a good thing, but involvement will ALWAYS be tempered. There will always be things that they cannot do and/or callings they cannot hold.


As I was typing the above responses, I got a notification that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve that, effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as LGBT may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission, etc.


And away we go.....

[cab]

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Except you didn't cite the source originally, which was disingenuous and a testament to your character and motive on these boards.

And Bill did more than just "share" what has been discovered. His website is proof of attempting to tear down individuals and the institution - direct and open opposition. Approach is everything and more than what you describe above.

I've been a member of this forum for 13 years... how about you? I think most know my character and so you can save the insults which reveals your own true character. Bill became alarmed and disturbed over what he had learned regarding the truth about church history and was upset and even irate over the level of deception employed by the church in order to maintain and gain membership. I'm pretty upset about it myself and when you feel betrayed and deceived by an institution you've devoted your entire life to, it does something to you.

It's difficult for those who mistake authority for truth, instead of vice versa.

Most idolaters, including myself for many, many years, believe as a sacred truth that authority (as in the nebulous "keys" held by the apostles) is the #1 factor in determining truth. If I could "blame" Jesus, it's His fault (wink, wink to Jesus, who would no doubt appreciate this next statement), because He is the one who said, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (DC 1:38).

This is veritas. But what is not easily discerned is the meaning of "servants".

Jesus, of course, is speaking of those duly sent by Him, i.e., TRUE messengers who are eyewitnesses of His divinity AND who have been "chosen" and "sent" on a specific errand/ mission AND whom are delivering words He commands to be spoken.

What WE in the Church (and by "we" I mean the mainstream, active church members) have done is conflate Joseph Smith's divine calling and qualification as a true messenger with subsequent presidents / apostles of the Church down to the present day. But there is zero justification that they are eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord who have been commanded by Him to say certain things.

And yet, we mainstream members equate Pres Nelson, as the latest figurehead, with the standard of Joseph Smith.

Such an equation is preposterous when one stops to think about it.

Even right now, any mainstream member and even ardent defender of the institution (like BrLenox or DrTanner) must necessarily and miserably fail to find any evidence that Pres Nelson or any living apostles is chosen and sent by God, or that they are eyewitnesses. Not. One. Shred. Of. Evidence. Can. Be. Quoted.

Because there is none.

And yet, the conflation exists. Which has the effect of elevating what these "impostors" utter to the mind and will of God, and which causes posters like Sparta above to get vicious in personal attacks on your character because why? Because you have attacked somebody (the apostles) who in very reality are on the LEVEL WITH GOD.

After all, "whether by mine own voice or.....it is the same."

But Sparta, what if, my good brother, they are not eyewitnesses? And for the sake of thinking glass half full, let's assume they are good men who mean well, but are just innocently deceived as to what authority they actually have due to the traditions of their fathers.

If they are just regular men, like you and me, who love Christ and believe they speak for Christ because of their priesthood office, then that should help you understand ALL, and I mean ALL of the "Geez, I don't know why the Church did that" scenarios through the decades!

The simple explanation as to why things have changed so much, and to why doctrine and ordinances have changed, and why there was institutional racism, and removal of the doctrine (the Lectures on Faith) from our canon in 1921 without a vote, and why there is flagrant censorship going on now, why there's a dark cloud of oppression of the members who can't ask or express real concerns or questions (like Bill Reel and many others), why there has been a centralization of power into SLC (which would make Wash DC envious) whereas DC 107 clearly teaches that each stake high council is equal in authority to the First Presidency, and Q of the 12 and to the 70, etc., why the BoM was totally neglected until the 1950's, why the Church was incorporated and made a subject to the "god" of the US government, why there is no transparency to the financials of the church or probably negative growth rate of the Church, why abortion-loving, Constitution-hating socialists like Mitt Romney are supported openly by the apostles, why the Church spends less than a few percentages of it's annual income on helping the poor and afflicted (and when it does there are press releases to its alms are known to the world)., etc., etc.

The list goes on and on.

The point is ALL of that nonsense and contradiction to the Scriptures and God's will makes TOTAL SENSE if the men running things are just men, mostly corporate leaders who bow to their corporate master, the president of the corporation, who bows to his god, the United States government.

The pretense is "authority" or "keys."

But I ask, what if you strip away the pretense? What if they stopped saying anything about their "supposed" authority?

What would they be left with? Their talks (which we are about to be treated to this weekend), about 99% of the content can accurately be described as pep talks to live a better life, or philosophies of men mingled with Scripture v. eternal and sublime oracles flowing from the mouthpiece of God.

General Conference is our semi-annual reminder that we are a chosen and a holy people (Alma 31:18), as evidenced by the fact that the Lord and the Redeemer has done his work, and he has given his authority and keys unto the Church and the Brethren (2 Nephi 28:5).

[EdGoble]

This is a list of potential changes that may be forthcoming, possibly as early as April GC according to sources with contacts at the COB - thought I'd post it for discussion...

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with Reel ..... unfortunately.

[topcat]

Except you didn't cite the source originally, which was disingenuous and a testament to your character and motive on these boards.

And Bill did more than just "share" what has been discovered. His website is proof of attempting to tear down individuals and the institution - direct and open opposition. Approach is everything and more than what you describe above.

I've been a member of this forum for 13 years... how about you? I think most know my character and so you can save the insults which reveals your own true character. Bill became alarmed and disturbed over what he had learned regarding the truth about church history and was upset and even irate over the level of deception employed by the church in order to maintain and gain membership. I'm pretty upset about it myself and when you feel betrayed and deceived by an institution you've devoted your entire life to, it does something to you.

It's difficult for those who mistake authority for truth, instead of vice versa.

Most idolaters, including myself for many, many years, believe as a sacred truth that authority (as in the nebulous "keys" held by the apostles) is the #1 factor in determining truth. If I could "blame" Jesus, it's His fault (wink, wink to Jesus, who would no doubt appreciate this next statement), because He is the one who said, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (DC 1:38).

This is veritas. But what is not easily discerned is the meaning of "servants".

Jesus, of course, is speaking of those duly sent by Him, i.e., TRUE messengers who are eyewitnesses of His divinity AND who have been "chosen" and "sent" on a specific errand/ mission AND whom are delivering words He commands to be spoken.

What WE in the Church (and by "we" I mean the mainstream, active church members) have done is conflate Joseph Smith's divine calling and qualification as a true messenger with subsequent presidents / apostles of the Church down to the present day. But there is zero justification that they are eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord who have been commanded by Him to say certain things.

And yet, we mainstream members equate Pres Nelson, as the latest figurehead, with the standard of Joseph Smith.

Such an equation is preposterous when one stops to think about it.

Even right now, any mainstream member and even ardent defender of the institution (like BrLenox or DrTanner) must necessarily and miserably fail to find any evidence that Pres Nelson or any living apostles is chosen and sent by God, or that they are eyewitnesses. Not. One. Shred. Of. Evidence. Can. Be. Quoted.

Because there is none.

And yet, the conflation exists. Which has the effect of elevating what these "impostors" utter to the mind and will of God, and which causes posters like Sparta above to get vicious in personal attacks on your character because why? Because you have attacked somebody (the apostles) who in very reality are on the LEVEL WITH GOD.

After all, "whether by mine own voice or.....it is the same."

But Sparta, what if, my good brother, they are not eyewitnesses? And for the sake of thinking glass half full, let's assume they are good men who mean well, but are just innocently deceived as to what authority they actually have due to the traditions of their fathers.

If they are just regular men, like you and me, who love Christ and believe they speak for Christ because of their priesthood office, then that should help you understand ALL, and I mean ALL of the "Geez, I don't know why the Church did that" scenarios through the decades!

The simple explanation as to why things have changed so much, and to why doctrine and ordinances have changed, and why there was institutional racism, and removal of the doctrine (the Lectures on Faith) from our canon in 1921 without a vote, and why there is flagrant censorship going on now, why there's a dark cloud of oppression of the members who can't ask or express real concerns or questions (like Bill Reel and many others), why there has been a centralization of power into SLC (which would make Wash DC envious) whereas DC 107 clearly teaches that each stake high council is equal in authority to the First Presidency, and Q of the 12 and to the 70, etc., why the BoM was totally neglected until the 1950's, why the Church was incorporated and made a subject to the "god" of the US government, why there is no transparency to the financials of the church or probably negative growth rate of the Church, why abortion-loving, Constitution-hating socialists like Mitt Romney are supported openly by the apostles, why the Church spends less than a few percentages of it's annual income on helping the poor and afflicted (and when it does there are press releases to its alms are known to the world)., etc., etc.

The list goes on and on.

The point is ALL of that nonsense and contradiction to the Scriptures and God's will makes TOTAL SENSE if the men running things are just men, mostly corporate leaders who bow to their corporate master, the president of the corporation, who bows to his god, the United States government.

The pretense is "authority" or "keys."

But I ask, what if you strip away the pretense? What if they stopped saying anything about their "supposed" authority?

What would they be left with? Their talks (which we are about to be treated to this weekend), about 99% of the content can accurately be described as pep talks to live a better life, or philosophies of men mingled with Scripture v. eternal and sublime oracles flowing from the mouthpiece of God.

General Conference is our semi-annual reminder that we are a chosen and a holy people (Alma 31:18), as evidenced by the fact that the Lord and the Redeemer has done his work, and he has given his authority and keys unto the Church and the Brethren (2 Nephi 28:5).

Excellent scriptural applications to the real world we live in. Might also add this one: 1 Nephi 8:26-27 where the folks in the great and spacious building are mocking the humble followers of Christ. Amazingly accurate the BoM is in predicting eerily what has transpired in our day.

[BKColt]

I predict the November 2015 policy gets reversed.

What's that? Oh...

[JK4Woods]

This is a list of potential changes that may be forthcoming, possibly as early as April GC according to sources with contacts at the COB - thought I'd post it for discussion...

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Ouch...!

[oneClimbs]

I anticipate there will be some deletion of scripture or at least an alteration in meaning. I am referring to scriptures that say anything to the effect that non caucasion skin color relates to curses pronouced because of the disobedience of an ancestor. I believe everything relating to this will be removed from all church teachings. Maybe not at this next GC, but sometime soon.

Does this mean that Mormon, Moroni and Joseph Smith included false doctrine in the Book of Mormon?

Now that's a slippery slope. What else is false doctrine in the Book of Mormon?

Isn't the concept of "deletion of scripture" troubling at the very least?

I have a theory about this, it's too detailed to go into here with references and all my unpolished notes but here goes. I don't believe that God ever changed anyone's skin color to curse or bless them, I think that any visible differences in skin color are the results of natural circumstances like breeding or in the case of the Book of Mormon...tanning.

I realize how this must sound but hear me out with my very summarized version of this theory. Let's start with wolves which is what most of our domesticated dogs came from. Almost all the breeds we have today are only hundreds of years old, here's some very basic info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed ... dog_breeds

Think about it, you have huge dark black dogs with short straight fur and tiny super white dogs with long curly fur. I think that the same thing can be done with people. We probably all started out brown and through breeding some peoples became darker as that was preferred and advantageous for hotter climates and lighter skin also came about in northern regions where it may have been more preferred. I know that the Chinese also prefer lighter skin and when a dominant cultural presence like that takes hold, theoretically, it should influence a lot of physical characteristics. Plus you have genetic anomalies like Albinism and such.

In the Book of Mormon, God never says that he's going to change the Lamanites' skin color. I think only Nephi, Alma, and Mormon comment on this. God says that the Lamanites will become a dark and loathesome people, but that's as far as it goes.

The Nephites always describe the Lamanites the same, that they are "naked" with shaved heads. Well, I don't have to tell you that if you have two middle-Eastern guys, one who keeps covered and another who lives his life in a skin girdle with a shaved head, one will be noticeably darker and the fact that he has a shaved head and is mostly naked will make that feature more obvious and observable.

Now consider how superstitious people have always been and how a tiny group of families in a fresh culture could have started a particular teaching. The sun was associated with God and I doubt it was a mystery that the sun caused skin to darken. If these Lamanites were walking around "naked" which since the Nephites didn't we might assume that they considered that nakedness offensive to God and if so, the darker skin being a kind of mark that God was putting on them for this behavior since the sun directly causes skin darkening. I think the strong symbolism of black = night = evil and white = day = good which is all over the scriptures and a very common archetype, the association was too irresistible to make into a kind of cultural metaphor to distinguish the Lamanites from the Nephites. This wasn't a race thing, they were all related, but they may have used this culturally to their advantage. Not saying it's right but people back then did stuff like that.

After the Lamanites converted they probably let their shaved heads grow hair and covered up, thus becoming "white" like unto the Nephites both in appearance (not Swedish white, these were still middle-Easterners) but in righteousness, not "European Caucasian". Skin color doesn't matter to God.

There's no mention of skin color after Christ's ministry to the Nephites which means this cultural tradition may have been lost during those generations of righteousness. Then you get to Mormon and he's abridging the history and just writing down what other people said happened based on their way of describing things.

For more evidence of this, take a look at Alma 3 where the Amalicites are cursed with the same curse as the Lamanites and are marked but it never mentions their skin changing, it was them painting their heads red that fulfilled God's word that they would be marked. That's interesting because it isn't what you'd expect if you are assuming people's skin is just transforming instantly. There is also no record of any change in skin color when the Ammonites join the Nephites.

It's very inconsistent so my theory is that we are seeing a natural process being appropriated and used as a metaphorical teaching without much explanation. This has led to presumptions about cursings and skin color changes that I think were influenced by very old supersitions that pre-dated the restoration and were common among early Americans including the Saints.

Anyway, my theory in a nutshell. The church will not be deleting any scriptures but may clarify.

[topcat]

I anticipate there will be some deletion of scripture or at least an alteration in meaning. I am referring to scriptures that say anything to the effect that non caucasion skin color relates to curses pronouced because of the disobedience of an ancestor. I believe everything relating to this will be removed from all church teachings. Maybe not at this next GC, but sometime soon.

Does this mean that Mormon, Moroni and Joseph Smith included false doctrine in the Book of Mormon?

Now that's a slippery slope. What else is false doctrine in the Book of Mormon?

Isn't the concept of "deletion of scripture" troubling at the very least?

I have a theory about this, it's too detailed to go into here with references and all my unpolished notes but here goes. I don't believe that God ever changed anyone's skin color to curse or bless them, I think that any visible differences in skin color are the results of natural circumstances like breeding or in the case of the Book of Mormon...tanning.

I realize how this must sound but hear me out with my very summarized version of this theory. Let's start with wolves which is what most of our domesticated dogs came from. Almost all the breeds we have today are only hundreds of years old, here's some very basic info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed ... dog_breeds

Think about it, you have huge dark black dogs with short straight fur and tiny super white dogs with long curly fur. I think that the same thing can be done with people. We probably all started out brown and through breeding some peoples became darker as that was preferred and advantageous for hotter climates and lighter skin also came about in northern regions where it may have been more preferred. I know that the Chinese also prefer lighter skin and when a dominant cultural presence like that takes hold, theoretically, it should influence a lot of physical characteristics. Plus you have genetic anomalies like Albinism and such.

In the Book of Mormon, God never says that he's going to change the Lamanites' skin color. I think only Nephi, Alma, and Mormon comment on this. God says that the Lamanites will become a dark and loathesome people, but that's as far as it goes.

The Nephites always describe the Lamanites the same, that they are "naked" with shaved heads. Well, I don't have to tell you that if you have two middle-Eastern guys, one who keeps covered and another who lives his life in a skin girdle with a shaved head, one will be noticeably darker and the fact that he has a shaved head and is mostly naked will make that feature more obvious and observable.

Now consider how superstitious people have always been and how a tiny group of families in a fresh culture could have started a particular teaching. The sun was associated with God and I doubt it was a mystery that the sun caused skin to darken. If these Lamanites were walking around "naked" which since the Nephites didn't we might assume that they considered that nakedness offensive to God and if so, the darker skin being a kind of mark that God was putting on them for this behavior since the sun directly causes skin darkening. I think the strong symbolism of black = night = evil and white = day = good which is all over the scriptures and a very common archetype, the association was too irresistible to make into a kind of cultural metaphor to distinguish the Lamanites from the Nephites. This wasn't a race thing, they were all related, but they may have used this culturally to their advantage. Not saying it's right but people back then did stuff like that.

After the Lamanites converted they probably let their shaved heads grow hair and covered up, thus becoming "white" like unto the Nephites both in appearance (not Swedish white, these were still middle-Easterners) but in righteousness, not "European Caucasian". Skin color doesn't matter to God.

There's no mention of skin color after Christ's ministry to the Nephites which means this cultural tradition may have been lost during those generations of righteousness. Then you get to Mormon and he's abridging the history and just writing down what other people said happened based on their way of describing things.

For more evidence of this, take a look at Alma 3 where the Amalicites are cursed with the same curse as the Lamanites and are marked but it never mentions their skin changing, it was them painting their heads red that fulfilled God's word that they would be marked. That's interesting because it isn't what you'd expect if you are assuming people's skin is just transforming instantly. There is also no record of any change in skin color when the Ammonites join the Nephites.

It's very inconsistent so my theory is that we are seeing a natural process being appropriated and used as a metaphorical teaching without much explanation. This has led to presumptions about cursings and skin color changes that I think were influenced by very old supersitions that pre-dated the restoration and were common among early Americans including the Saints.

Anyway, my theory in a nutshell. The church will not be deleting any scriptures but may clarify.

Your theory is plausible. Thanks for sharing!

[thisisspartaaa]

Flagg, can I ask you, are your sources of these potential changes the same people that gave you the information last time from before the last conference? In other words, some of what you presented last time was on the mark. Are these things also from "insiders" so to speak like last time?

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Except you didn't cite the source originally, which was disingenuous and a testament to your character and motive on these boards.

And Bill did more than just "share" what has been discovered. His website is proof of attempting to tear down individuals and the institution - direct and open opposition. Approach is everything and more than what you describe above.

I've been a member of this forum for 13 years... how about you? I think most know my character and so you can save the insults which reveals your own true character. Bill became alarmed and disturbed over what he had learned regarding the truth about church history and was upset and even irate over the level of deception employed by the church in order to maintain and gain membership. I'm pretty upset about it myself and when you feel betrayed and deceived by an institution you've devoted your entire life to, it does something to you. If you prefer to remain ignorant to many of the troubling and dare I say highly disturbing aspects of church history, don't start reading the essays the church has quietly buried on its website which it has said nothing about to the general membership or the dozens of other shorter essays it has penned as well which used to be 'anti-Mormon' lit just a few years ago.

Tenure on an anonymous online forum doesn't mean anything. Many of your posts are disingenuous. For anyone wanting to look into this, here is the transcript provided by Bill on his disciplinary meeting:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... recording/

The irony here is it is evidence of his personal attacks and juvenile behavior towards the General Authorities. For example, posting a picture of a GA with a liar stamp across the head (but Col. Flagg will tell you that he was excommunicated for "delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history"). Here's the link:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... s-on-fire/

Disciplinary charges were this:

1) Opposition to the Church and its leaders
2) Targeting the most simple and sublime truths of the gospel
3) Preaching against the blessings of the Church

To be blunt, the guy is a jerk in his approach and his tactics and juvenile behavior got him ex'd. It's VERY clear this man has absolutely no interest in an honest, intellectual conversation and is more interested in tearing down an institution.

Edit: One quick afterthought. I do appreciate Bill Reel in one thing. At least he has made his persona known to the world. The worst thing are the "Bill Reels" masquerading behind anonymous online identities who deliberately try to tear down the church while retaining their positions inside the church. Unfortunately LDS Freedom Forum has become a haven and platform for these individuals to spread their "truth".

[oneClimbs]

I have a little history with Bill. Years ago, I listened to his podcast and enjoyed it, I had banners for his site on my blog but then I saw him beginning to turn and I did try and intervene.

I’ve met Bill in person and had about an hour long conversation on the phone with him where I challenged him politely but seriously on the same-sex attraction issue.

He made the usual arguments which I point by point disagreed with and explained why. Then I brought up what I see as the most disturbing problem that people with his ideology don’t ever seem to address.

I pointed out to him that nobody on his side of the debate is making a doctrinal case for their point of view, it is all emotional and if you disagree you are filled with hate.

That is ridiculous, you have to be able to make a case and persuade and there is nothing persuasive there. I asked him if he could make a doctrinal case for same-sex relationships and to his credit he admitted that he could not and that this was a problem.

Yet he had no issue in throwing his weight behind an ideology with no doctrinal basis.

Once you start building on sand, it is only a matter of time before the tide comes in. I saw this state of things coming years ago and it saddens me.

I do think he is mostly a genuine guy, but I think he wants to be a crusader like John Dehlin and might have a Brer Rabbit type complex where he may welcome that “badge” of excommunication. He wants admiration and to be out there as an influencer no doubt because part of him genuinely wants to help people, but he seems like he is in the territory of wanting to be seen as the light. It’s tricky because it takes guts to put yourself out there and fight for things you believe in but he has chosen some very, very questionable hills to die on so to speak.

These are just my thoughts I don’t know his heart but because of his fruits he has been off my radar. I wish him well but his line of thinking reminds me of the phrase “strain out the gnat and swallow the camel”.

[Lizzy60]

These Church members, in their books and essay, are making a case for same-sex relationships and marriage as doctrinal.

https://www.stumblingblocksandstepping- ... AOBunHMLFs

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Rights-Mormo ... 1607816636

https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/03/19/ ... -an-essay/

[topcat]

No, the list is from Bill Reel - he does a Mormon podcast online but has connections at the highest levels of the church. He was recently ex-communicated for delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history even though his SP didn't agree with the decision. The church continues to tell members it's OK to ask questions and investigate church history but if/when you do and begin to share what you've discovered with other members, they drop the hammer on you.

Except you didn't cite the source originally, which was disingenuous and a testament to your character and motive on these boards.

And Bill did more than just "share" what has been discovered. His website is proof of attempting to tear down individuals and the institution - direct and open opposition. Approach is everything and more than what you describe above.

I've been a member of this forum for 13 years... how about you? I think most know my character and so you can save the insults which reveals your own true character. Bill became alarmed and disturbed over what he had learned regarding the truth about church history and was upset and even irate over the level of deception employed by the church in order to maintain and gain membership. I'm pretty upset about it myself and when you feel betrayed and deceived by an institution you've devoted your entire life to, it does something to you. If you prefer to remain ignorant to many of the troubling and dare I say highly disturbing aspects of church history, don't start reading the essays the church has quietly buried on its website which it has said nothing about to the general membership or the dozens of other shorter essays it has penned as well which used to be 'anti-Mormon' lit just a few years ago.

Tenure on an anonymous online forum doesn't mean anything. Many of your posts are disingenuous. For anyone wanting to look into this, here is the transcript provided by Bill on his disciplinary meeting:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... recording/

The irony here is it is evidence of his personal attacks and juvenile behavior towards the General Authorities. For example, posting a picture of a GA with a liar stamp across the head (but Col. Flagg will tell you that he was excommunicated for "delving into controversial, disturbing and even truthful aspects of church history"). Here's the link:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... s-on-fire/

Disciplinary charges were this:

1) Opposition to the Church and its leaders
2) Targeting the most simple and sublime truths of the gospel
3) Preaching against the blessings of the Church

To be blunt, the guy is a jerk in his approach and his tactics and juvenile behavior got him ex'd. It's VERY clear this man has absolutely no interest in an honest, intellectual conversation and is more interested in tearing down an institution.

Edit: One quick afterthought. I do appreciate Bill Reel in one thing. At least he has made his persona known to the world. The worst thing are the "Bill Reels" masquerading behind anonymous online identities who deliberately try to tear down the church while retaining their positions inside the church. Unfortunately LDS Freedom Forum has become a haven and platform for these individuals to spread their "truth".

Abinadi used disguise at some point in his ministry.

Though I do believe that shielding oneself behind anonymity isn't a permanent solution.

The bigger question is: why do the members feel the need to be anonymous to express their questions and concerns? The answer is that the church abuses members by way of censorship or disciplinary action including excommunication. So members choose to avoid the abuse by going anonymous.

Radio Free Mormon still chooses anonymity. He and Bill Reel do many podcasts together. I have listened to a few of them, and many more solo RFM podcasts at www.radiofreemormon.com.

There is definitely some good insight there, but both of those men appear to have liberal or progressive tendencies, and therefore have a chip missing, if you will, in their discernment of right and wrong. But they get a lot of stuff right, and are articulate and entertaining, esp RFM.

I do not see anything wrong with "tearing down an institution," meaning, expose the lies and corruption. Indeed, we are commanded to do so!!

Do institutions save? No they don't. Daniel 2 explains what the Truth does to institutions.

Institutions only apostatize from the truth, so there is a need for them to be brought low.

And I would restate your last sentence as follows:

Fortunately LDS Freedom Forum has become a haven and platform for these individuals to spread Truth.

What truth are you referring to that doesn't qualify as "truth", in your mind?