Which one of my questions or examples prompt you to ask that question? Are any of my questions unreasonable?endlessismyname wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 3:23 pm“Cynics do not contribute, skeptics do not create, doubters do not achieve.”topcat wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 3:04 pmYou are okay with a church that purports to be led by Christ to be subservient to the government? How do you interpret render unto Caesar to mean submit to Caesar?ori wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 2:00 pmJonesy, this is amazingly well stated. I agree with 99% of it. I agree with how you characterized the original post. I also identify with your characterization of yourself as a TBM -- that is, I may or may not consider myself to be a TBM, but I'm fine with the label.Jonesy wrote: ↑May 16th, 2019, 11:59 pm I have to be frank, the OP comes across as a little disingenuous and as bit of a tactic. And I hope this doesn’t come across as contentious. Neither do I desire a debate. But there’s a touting of “obvious facts” that required you to humble yourself to the dust. You offer this as my chance? Is it courageous if I don’t concede because of my difference of belief? “An impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions”?
I see it in this life that there is an opposition in all things, and we must also walk by faith. Is truth so black and white without the walk of faith and discernment? I’m believing more and more that even prophets look through a glass, darkly; and although we have rock-solid pillars of truth, the rest of what we have we are left to piece by our best use of what God has granted us. There’s just so much we don’t know. I don’t know if I consider myself a TBM, but I’m pretty sure there are people who would call me one, which is fine.
Anyways! Here are my answers:
1. The Church is a corporation. But the church is also the true body of believers.
2. Yes, it appears that the Apostles have some kind of financial backing.
3. I don’t know. You could be right.
4. You’re probably right. It appears to be canonized declarations.
5. As long as the Brethren have the keys, which I believe they do, then it is true that they would keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold. That’s what I get from it. But the saints must be real, born-again saints.
6. Might be true. I believe there is an understanding of a law that Joseph lived that has been lost to us in our day.
7. Sure, but I don’t think they expect us to take everything they say as gospel truth. The Spirit has always been taught as the variable that allows the duty devolving upon the saints.
I don’t know if these are acceptable answers for you, but I hope you may consider as well.
My remaining comments are directed at topcat:
Regarding the church being subservient to the goverment -- I would remind you that Christ taught us to render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's. Joseph Smith also taught that governments are instituted for a good purpose. It is right and reasonable that the Church would therefore do all things in wisdom and order, and this includes its status in relation to the government. I don't see any real problems there.
I concede that with respect to polygamy, there are some really hard questions, which may never be answered satisfactorily until the millennium. So yes, I concede it MIGHT be true that Joseph didn't practice polygamy. I personally think he married multiple wives, but probably did not have sex with any of them. However, I'm open to the truth and learning more about it, so there aren't any polygamy-related narrative "hills" that I'm willing to die on.
What about the first commandment?
What about you cannot serve two masters?
You cannot think of any circumstances where what the state wants may conflict with what Christ wants? I
Do you think that the threat of removing tax exempt status is a motivator for corporations, esp those who'd like to keep billions of dollars?
Ori, you are on a freedom forum, so I will assume you are familiar with the historical and current truth that the state is an enemy to freedom. Authoritarians get in power and persecute those who preach Liberty, usually through threats against property, liberty, and even threatening death. Yes, governments kill. Look up democide.
The rule of thumb is that governments, meaning evil people have risen to the top and control things, plunder and enslave their people. Unfortunately the United States government, as it has evolved from the glorious days of the Founding Fathers, is no different than any other government in history, and the oligarchical technocrats who rule us have figured out a way for the slaves to enjoy their servitude, indeed to not even realize that they're slaves.
However for those who have figured it out, and do voice their opposition to the corruption and the authoritarian laws of the land that oppress and molest, they become targets of persecution by the government. Hopefully I need not give real world examples of that happening right now in America to the conservative / Libertarian voices out there.
I will assume you are aware of the many examples of outright Orwellian government oppression going on right now.
Since I assume you will do not deny the atrocities by governments against their own people, I equally assume that you will understand that governments use every form of intimidation and oppression to control the people, so the evil leaders can remain in power and not be exposed.
Which patriot voices historically are the ones targeted first? In other words which voices are most influential in a society to inspire the people to fight tyranny and to preserve and enlarge freedom?
The answer would be the Christian voices. The churches. So wouldn't it make perfect sense if you're the government to cleverly make laws whereby the churches could all be controlled through threats to tax them if they don't stay in line with what you want them to say or not to say?
And that of course is exactly what has happened in America. It's been this way for decades. I anticipate that since you are a visitor on this freedom forum, that this will make intuitive sense to you.
And so with all of this being said, might there be a conflict of interest by not only this church but any church that has tax-exempt status, and is incorporated, wherebywhat the church leaders preach may be influenced by those in the government?
Throughout the decades patriots have written thousands of articles that have exposed how the sermons of American preachers have been gutted and the preachers themselves totally brought to heel by their government masters.
Do you believe the Mormon Church is an exception, and they don't care about having their wealth and assets confiscated and corporation annihilated by the government?
If you believe that, then you need to go revisit our history in 1890. It is a verifiable case study. It demonstrates the path the church leaders deliberately chose in order stay out of prison, and to preserve their assets.
At the time polygamous relationships were an essential part of exaltation. And that doctrine just coincidentally changed a hundred and eighty degrees at the time church leaders were threatened with imprisonment and confiscation of property. Think about that, in context of the questions I'm asking you.
The government actually caused the church leaders to declare its doctrine invalid and even to reverse it, on threat of imprisonment and theft of property. You don't see a conflict of interest?
The obvious concern of everybody with her head out of the sand is, to whom do the leaders submit to? To whom do they pledge their loyalty, not just by word but deed.
When push comes to shove, who will win, Mammon or God?
Are you willing to concede that you are a highly cynical, skeptical, and doubting individual when it comes to church history and beliefs?
It's a common and weak tactic to personally attack or defame when you have no argument.
Do you find it unfortunate that you and others label people cynical, skeptical, or doubtful for simply asking questions?
Do you concede or acknowledge any of the facts that I listed above, or are you content to employ ad hominem attacks?