Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

endlessismyname wrote: May 17th, 2019, 3:23 pm
topcat wrote: May 17th, 2019, 3:04 pm
ori wrote: May 17th, 2019, 2:00 pm
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.
Jonesy, 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.

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.
You 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?

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?
“Cynics do not contribute, skeptics do not create, doubters do not achieve.”

Are you willing to concede that you are a highly cynical, skeptical, and doubting individual when it comes to church history and beliefs?
Which one of my questions or examples prompt you to ask that question? Are any of my questions unreasonable?

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?

User avatar
SJR3t2
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2619
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by SJR3t2 »

eddie wrote: May 17th, 2019, 3:30 am SEEKING YHWH
MOSIAH 18:13 AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD WAS UPON HIM, AND HE SAID: HELAM, I BAPTIZE THEE, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM THE ALMIGHTY GOD, AS A TESTIMONY THAT YE HAVE ENTERED INTO A COVENANT TO SERVE HIM UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD AS TO THE MORTAL BODY; AND MAY THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BE POURED OUT UPON YOU; AND MAY HE GRANT UNTO YOU ETERNAL LIFE, THROUGH THE REDEMPTION OF CHRIST, WHOM HE HAS PREPARED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Search …
ABOUT
I believe that Jesus is our Savior. That He called Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient record written by ancient prophets. I grew up LDS but after I found out that the LDS church changes doctrines despite the fact they say they don't God told me to remove my name from their records.

If you are interested you can find my resignation letter here https://seekingyhwh.com/2015/01/18/lds- ... on-letter/ .

Russell M. Nelson Talk

Such contentious spirits are not new. In an epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul gave this warning, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Tim. 6:1.)

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to [his] doctrine … doting about questions and strifes of words, … supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3–5; see also Isa. 29:21; 2 Ne. 27:32; D&C 19:30; D&C 38:41; D&C 60:14.)

Dissecting doctrine in a controversial way in order to draw attention to oneself is not pleasing to the Lord. He declared:

“Bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

“And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:62–63.)
You want to talk about specific things you think are wrong, or just use some general statements that you like to show that I'm wrong.

Here are some more examples of doctrines that the LDS church has changed. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/12/18/anthony-e-larson/

Here are some comments I did regarding Nelson and some things he said. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/10/07/no-f ... e-another/

This article talks how the LDS church is not following what the scriptures and thus God state Bishops should be doing. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/09/09/bish ... of-israel/

It's very easy to slander someone when you don't like points they bring up. The question is can you expand the scriptures to show me how I am wrong.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by eddie »

SJR3t2 wrote: May 17th, 2019, 10:43 pm
eddie wrote: May 17th, 2019, 3:30 am SEEKING YHWH
MOSIAH 18:13 AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD WAS UPON HIM, AND HE SAID: HELAM, I BAPTIZE THEE, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM THE ALMIGHTY GOD, AS A TESTIMONY THAT YE HAVE ENTERED INTO A COVENANT TO SERVE HIM UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD AS TO THE MORTAL BODY; AND MAY THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BE POURED OUT UPON YOU; AND MAY HE GRANT UNTO YOU ETERNAL LIFE, THROUGH THE REDEMPTION OF CHRIST, WHOM HE HAS PREPARED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Search …
ABOUT
I believe that Jesus is our Savior. That He called Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient record written by ancient prophets. I grew up LDS but after I found out that the LDS church changes doctrines despite the fact they say they don't God told me to remove my name from their records.

If you are interested you can find my resignation letter here https://seekingyhwh.com/2015/01/18/lds- ... on-letter/ .

Russell M. Nelson Talk

Such contentious spirits are not new. In an epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul gave this warning, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Tim. 6:1.)

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to [his] doctrine … doting about questions and strifes of words, … supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3–5; see also Isa. 29:21; 2 Ne. 27:32; D&C 19:30; D&C 38:41; D&C 60:14.)

Dissecting doctrine in a controversial way in order to draw attention to oneself is not pleasing to the Lord. He declared:

“Bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

“And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:62–63.)
You want to talk about specific things you think are wrong, or just use some general statements that you like to show that I'm wrong.

Here are some more examples of doctrines that the LDS church has changed. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/12/18/anthony-e-larson/

Here are some comments I did regarding Nelson and some things he said. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/10/07/no-f ... e-another/

This article talks how the LDS church is not following what the scriptures and thus God state Bishops should be doing. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/09/09/bish ... of-israel/

It's very easy to slander someone when you don't like points they bring up. The question is can you expand the scriptures to show me how I am wrong.
I’m done listening to your rhetoric, I don’t have to prove you wrong, you are doing that yourself. Slander? Is that not what you are doing to our Church and leaders? I beseech you to listen to yourself.

User avatar
SJR3t2
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2619
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by SJR3t2 »

eddie wrote: May 17th, 2019, 11:26 pm
SJR3t2 wrote: May 17th, 2019, 10:43 pm
eddie wrote: May 17th, 2019, 3:30 am SEEKING YHWH
MOSIAH 18:13 AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD WAS UPON HIM, AND HE SAID: HELAM, I BAPTIZE THEE, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM THE ALMIGHTY GOD, AS A TESTIMONY THAT YE HAVE ENTERED INTO A COVENANT TO SERVE HIM UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD AS TO THE MORTAL BODY; AND MAY THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BE POURED OUT UPON YOU; AND MAY HE GRANT UNTO YOU ETERNAL LIFE, THROUGH THE REDEMPTION OF CHRIST, WHOM HE HAS PREPARED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Search …
ABOUT
I believe that Jesus is our Savior. That He called Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient record written by ancient prophets. I grew up LDS but after I found out that the LDS church changes doctrines despite the fact they say they don't God told me to remove my name from their records.

If you are interested you can find my resignation letter here https://seekingyhwh.com/2015/01/18/lds- ... on-letter/ .

Russell M. Nelson Talk

Such contentious spirits are not new. In an epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul gave this warning, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Tim. 6:1.)

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to [his] doctrine … doting about questions and strifes of words, … supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3–5; see also Isa. 29:21; 2 Ne. 27:32; D&C 19:30; D&C 38:41; D&C 60:14.)

Dissecting doctrine in a controversial way in order to draw attention to oneself is not pleasing to the Lord. He declared:

“Bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

“And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:62–63.)
You want to talk about specific things you think are wrong, or just use some general statements that you like to show that I'm wrong.

Here are some more examples of doctrines that the LDS church has changed. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/12/18/anthony-e-larson/

Here are some comments I did regarding Nelson and some things he said. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/10/07/no-f ... e-another/

This article talks how the LDS church is not following what the scriptures and thus God state Bishops should be doing. https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/09/09/bish ... of-israel/

It's very easy to slander someone when you don't like points they bring up. The question is can you expand the scriptures to show me how I am wrong.
I’m done listening to your rhetoric, I don’t have to prove you wrong, you are doing that yourself. Slander? Is that not what you are doing to our Church and leaders? I beseech you to listen to yourself.
What rhetoric am I sharing? I'm sharing scriptures and applying them to us as Nephi directs us to do. I spend much time working on my posts, I know what is in them and stand by them. I ask again can you expound scriptures showing I am wrong? Because all I am seeing is that you don't like what it says because it speaks against false tradition you grew up with. Do you really think you would have listened to Lehi or Abinadi in their day?

Only if you believed in this verse as I do.

Moroni 9:6 And now, my beloved son, notwithstanding their hardness, let us labor diligently; for if we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation; for we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness, and rest our souls in the kingdom of God.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Jonesy »

topcat wrote: May 17th, 2019, 11:03 am Thanks. I commend you for your courage. But what I think, at the end of the day, doesn't mean anything. However, I do think God would commend you for your humility and courage.

In summary, you do concede the facts:

1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation that operates subject to the good and will and pleasure of the state. If it does things or says things that upset its creator, its creator (the gov't) could seize assets and destroy the corporation. And such a thing happened in the 1880's, as the gov't gave commands, and started confiscating property and imprisoning leaders until the corporate leaders submitted to the state's will. The end result was that so-called "saving" doctrine was reversed.

The Part B to this item was, Do you concede there is a conflict of interest? Do you see the danger in such a conflict, with the #1 concern being a watering down of Truth, or outright sacrifice of Truth in order to avoid upsetting your creator -- the state?

2) The top leaders do get financial backing, as you say.

Part B is about the potential conflict of interest with the Lord? Could what their corporate boss (who compensates them) thinks about the employee's (the GA's) actions or speeches have any influence on what the employee (the GA) says or does? Perhaps there's a conflict of interest?

3) It's okay, I see you haven't investigated. But if you do (just go to lds.org and search the back editions of the Ensign. You can go to Oct (I believe it is) of 1981 and see the one article buried in the magazine that mentions there's going to be some changes, but the actual relevant content ("the president can't lead you astray" part) is omitted!

Part B to my original question, and this assumes you do believe the Church was 100% out of line procedurally in adding those parts, the question would be, WHY? That's the million dollar question. Surely the canonization of ANYTHING would and could not be an accident. There must be a reason. What could the Brethren have had in mind to add such a extraordinary teaching to the Church that would fixate members' trust in and on the president of the Church that would inexorably lead to a complete dependence on him? Why would certain people in 1981 have wanted that inevitable result?

4) Yes, you said it even better than me. They are canonized "declarations." But how do you canonize a declaration. These are called PRESS RELEASES by some. I had never thought of them that way. But when the Church has an announcement or "declaration" to make, what does it do? It issues a press release. How do press releases get elevated to the level of Scripture in members' minds? By placing them in our canon of Scripture. The lines between a press release declaration and scripture would definitely get blurred, right? Now, the question is, why would the Brethren want members to think the two Official Declarations were Scripture, coming forth from the mouth of God?

5) On example #5, which is "Do you concede that if the 1981-added part that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is a teaching which abrogates/ nullifies the agency of the president, and that it encourages members to place their faith in the president rather than the Lord", you are riding the fence here.

Could I persuade you to answer these four related questions:

A) If it was true that the president could not lead us astray, would that be akin to saying the members' salvation is guaranteed by doing what the president says to do? After all, since he cannot err, then members would feel totally and absolutely confident in hearkening to his counsel, correct? That's why you believe they would "keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold."
B) But does merely "having the keys" guarantee they cannot err, and thus guarantee our salvation?
C) Would somebody with "keys" secretly canonize (it's indisputable there was not an announcement or vote) a teaching that nullified the president's agency?
D) Why would certain leaders want to convince people to follow them by saying they could not lead you astray? This is the million dollar question that should demand our careful attention!

6) You do concede Joseph and Emma MIGHT have been telling the truth when they testified repeatedly he had only one wife (Emma) and that Joseph condemned polygamy. Of course, if this is true, then Pandora's Box is opened regarding the origin of polygamy.

7) You do concede the logical fallacy incessantly taught by the leaders implies that if the BoM is true, that equates to presidents AFTER Joseph Smith being true prophets, as Joseph was.

Part B: Why would the leaders, by frequent repetition of this logical fallacy, want to get members to believe that the BoM being true means they ALSO are true prophets, as Joseph Smith was? How do they benefit by this leap of logic? What would they stand to lose if people weren't making this false conclusion?



I just realized that all 7 of the examples have one thing in common. All 7 facts cause one to seriously consider the veracity of claims to authority by certain leaders. NONE of the facts impugns Jesus Christ, or creates doubt in Deity, or makes one want to lose faith in our Savior Jesus Christ. Christ's greatness and perfections are left unmolested. What the 7 facts may contribute to, however, is a doubt in the claims of certain men about THEIR "supposed" authority, inspiring the individual to make sure he is standing on the rock of Jesus Christ and not on the rock of any man or men. That's the effect the exercise has on me anyway.
Well, I’ll clarify on a few things I guess. Admittedly, I’d usually just skip to make my conclusions.

1. What have I to do with the Corporation? To me it’s irrelevant. What I care about is the church (that is, the little ‘c’); being one with the body of true saints. The keys only mean anything if we benefit from its purposes. I think part of the purpose is to be one. Straight is the path, and narrow the way. Being a baptized member is just a part of that path.

3. The church leaders are inspired through the spirit of expediency. It is running its course for God’s purposes.

5. Oh, no. I’m not riding the fence. You’re just framing the question. You’re forcing an answer to which I don’t concede. It’s like asking me whether I’m Republican or Democrat. Well, neither. Like I said, the members ought to know well enough the responsibility of the saints in also allowing the Spirit to guide them in their decisions. The leaders own their responsibilities as well, and I don’t dare publicly criticize nor correct them. I’ve learned my lesson. I admit I don’t fully understand it, but I know that is what God wants. But men can most certainly err. That is expected.

7. Keys and titles shouldn’t demand our allegiance. Another part of the keys is to validate ordinances. I believe a baptism without the Spirit is null, just as a baptism without the keys is null. It’s not about faith in these men. It’s about faith in the keys that God gave them. It’s sealing not just in heaven, but also earth. The gift of the spirit will lead one to the true fold.

I can see why your conclusions are that way. It seems you believe that it’s about the men. It’s not. The keys are God’s keys given to man.
2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth. (D&C 65)
The Doctrine and Covenants is full of doctrine pertaining to keys and the priesthood. In fact, if you do a quick search, looking up these very words (“keys” and “priesthood”) in all of scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants far outweighs teaching this doctrine than any other book—like around 10:1. Why? Because this is how it was revealed to Joseph Smith to administer the gospel in our day.

I would say your focus may be off. Because the foundation of Christ is most certainly planted with keys and priesthood. Nowhere else is that available on earth than in the church. So, we should use the keys given us. Not focus on men and their inadequacies.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by oneClimbs »

I’m not a fan of the TBM acronym, btw. It seems to be used in the derogatory when I hear it, painting a picture of a mindless drone that just believes whatever they are told.

I don’t personally know any adults like that. My experience is that most people I know are just as complex and varied in their thoughts as people here. You can believe and know certain truths and still disagree with things that are genuinely problematic.

A good example is how I love the United States; my family was involved in the Boston Tea Party and fought in the war for Independence. I love living here in this country but I am all too aware of the corruption in the government and wickedness of many people in our country. But it is still a great country because there are still good people in it and the principles it was founded on are good.

So I’ll fight for all the good while recognizing the bad. My view on the church is the same. The human condition has always had this dynamic at play.

If you want to do good in this world, you have to do it fighting uphill and upstream. You’re always going to go up against contradiction and opposition, even in your most intimate circles.

Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples. His own ‘church’ fought him and ‘excommunicated’ him and turned him over to the government to be executed.

Compared to Jesus, we have it easy. So let’s not complain too much. All is not well in Zion or the world, but the truth is there and just like all the saints of old, we can build Zion in our hearts and in our circles of influence to the degree we are able.

We are accountable for what we have control over. Let God deal with his church. If he wants to cleanse it, he will.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Perhaps the brethren have the keys to the family car, but are still learning how to drive. :P

User avatar
Arandur
captain of 100
Posts: 129

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Arandur »

topcat wrote: May 16th, 2019, 11:58 am
1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation. It's subject to the federal gov't. Meaning, it's MASTER is the gov't. If the owners of the corporation (which is remarkably just one man, the president) wish to keep the corporate charter, it must not upset its master. This clearly is a conflict of interest with the Lord. Do you concede there is a conflict of interest? Which of you TBM's will concede this point? When the gov't requires something that conflicts with the Lord, might the leaders of the corporation (the apostles) bow to the creator of the corporation instead of bowing to the will of God?

Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. That much checks out. But I do not concede that merely being legally recognized makes the Church subject to the government as its master. The government is exactly as much the master of the church as the leaders of the church allow. Is there a conflict of interest here? Of course. But there’s no sin until they actually yield to the conflict and choose man over God. Being fallen, mortal, imperfect people, I’m even confident that they do yield to varying degrees. So, in short, all of this point checks out except the statement that the church’s master is the government. That doesn’t follow from the rest, and doesn’t seem to me to be either fully or mostly true.

2) The top leaders (let's just say the apostles, though there are lots and lots of paid ministers incl mission presidents and seventies, etc.) are paid with a salary and perks. Conflict of interest with the Lord? Could what their corporate boss thinks about the employee's actions or speeches have any influence on what the employee says or does? Perhaps there's a conflict of interest? Concession here?

Again, yes, there’s a conflict of interest. I don’t much care, but I’ll concede the point if you like. What matters is what they do with the conflict.

3) There were some Wilford Woodruff speech excerpts from 1890 added to OD1 in 1981 without an announcement or vote. The famous "The Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" false teaching was canonized. Again, with ZERO announcement nor vote. Do YOU concede this was 100% out of line procedurally?

I don’t know enough about this yet to either concede or deny any part of it, including purely factual elements that we presumably have record of. I’m not sure whether there was an announcement or vote, whether the teaching is false, or whether it was procedurally legitimate. This issue is on my research list, but I have higher priorities. The facts may be plain on either side, or may be unclear. I’ll find out, eventually.

4) Do you concede neither OD 1 nor OD2 are "revelations"? Keep in mind they are actually called "Declarations", as in Official DECLARATION, and they are not part of the "SECTIONS" of the D&C. Do you concede the content are not "revelations"?

This is the first point I’ll have to seriously push back on. I don’t presume to know what God has privately communicated to others and what He hasn’t, except in the cases where God Himself tells me. I’d caution you against making such presumptions, and certainly against implying that such presumptions as clear, plain facts that obviously ought to be conceded by anyone who’s willing to be honest and think clearly. Or did you simply want a concession that they aren’t officially designated as revelations? If so, I’ll acknowledge it, but it matters very little what’s officially designated as what, so there’s little point in asking that question, especially doing so in a way that is easily conflated with the more important question, so I still take issue with it unless I’ve seriously misunderstood you. Was it a true revelation or was it not? That’s the real question, it’s the one you asked, and I say the answer cannot be known except by personal revelation.

5) Do you concede that if the 1981-added part that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is nonsense, and even anti Christ, in that it teaches the principle that God will violate free agency of the president, and that it encourages members to place their faith in the president rather than the Lord? Do you concede ANY of these points? Or do you want to justify the secret addition in 1981?

Again, I know little about this. I can comment somewhat on the teaching itself, I suppose. I don’t believe that the only way God could fulfill this promise, if real, would be to violate the president’s moral agency. “Removing him out of his place” could occur in a number of other ways. Whether any of those possibilities are compatible with the nature and character of God is a can of worms that shall, for now, remain firmly closed. This teaching does, however, focus promoting faith in church leaders. This is not wholly incompatible with faith in Christ - indeed, if I learn by revelation that someone is a true prophet and am divinely instructed to follow their direction unless God Himself later says otherwise, the two blend nicely - but of course it isn’t taught this way, so we do have some problems. So, I don’t think you quite get a concession this time, although you raise valid and important points that we need to consider very carefully.

6) Polygamy. Do you concede Joseph and Emma may have been telling the truth and that he was having sex with only his wife, Emma, whom he said was his ONLY wife, and that he condemned having more than one wife? I am asking if you will concede this MIGHT be true?

Done. It may or may not be true.

7) Do you concede that if the BoM is true (and it is, I testify in the name of Christ), that does NOT equate to presidents AFTER Joseph Smith being true prophets, like Joseph was? In other words, it's a total logical fallacy for the Church leaders to prop up by incessant repetition that just because the BoM is true, that EVERYTHING current Church leaders say is the gospel truth. Do you concede this idea?

Wholeheartedly, yes. Get your own revelation, folks. The classic stories of people receiving dramatic confirmations about Brigham Young mean nothing on their own, except perhaps to serve as a reason to ask God about it yourself. And even assuming it’s true that they were/are all prophets, it still doesn’t follow that everything they have taught is correct; humans make mistakes.
Yes, I’m a TBM (or perhaps “true believing/true blue member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” is more fitting for one who so self-proclaims). I know for myself where my God wants me. None of this stuff changes it.

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Report Card So Far:


Factually stated, there has not been a rush of mainstream members of the Church to acknowledge the 7 facts I listed. It begs the question why.

There HAVE BEEN a couple respondents who at least partially made the concessions. But did Jonesy or Arandur go all the way. What is "all the way"?

I think "all the way" means to consider the implications of what the facts mean. Jonesy has said the implications are "irrelevant" to him. Arandur made concessions, but has said "[he doesn't] much care" about the implications, for example, of the conflict of interest with the GA's getting paid by the corporation. This is what Jonesy and Arandur have in common, and I must say, I GET IT.

I do want to accurately summarize, so I will say:

1) Hardly anybody has responded so far.
2) The couple people who did respond on record state their apathy about the implications. Jonesy said, "What have I to do with the Corporation? To me it’s irrelevant."


Not to state the obvious, but there is a reason people do not want to concede or acknowledge facts. It's because they don't want to look at the implication.

For example from Helaman 9:
31 But behold, ye shall examine him, and ye shall find blood upon the skirts of his cloak.

32 And when ye have seen this, ye shall say: From whence cometh this blood? Do we not know that it is the blood of your brother?

33 And then shall he tremble, and shall look pale, even as if death had come upon him.

34 And then shall ye say: Because of this fear and this paleness which has come upon your face, behold, we know that thou art guilty.

35 And then shall greater fear come upon him; and then shall he confess unto you, and deny no more that he has done this murder.
The relevant facts in this case:

1) The chief judge was murdered.
2) The murder suspect was his brother.
3) Blood was on the brother's cloak.
4) After discovering the blood the murder-suspect brother "trembled, and looked pale, even as if death had come upon him."

The implication from discovered blood and the brother's reaction to the blood is that he was the murderer. The facts point to a conclusion.

In this case, the 7 facts are indisputable. A person who is humble as a little child (5th point of Christ's doctrine in 3 Nephi 11) would humbly acknowledge the facts. As said, at least a couple respondents here sort of acknowledged the facts. And with the acknowledgment of the facts, comes the natural next step of considering the implication of the facts. Namely, do the facts represent a conflict of interest?

1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation that exists subject to the good and will and pleasure of the state. FACT.

Might the state's will conflict with the Lord's will? YES, OBVIOUSLY.

2) The leaders draw a secret salary and perks. FACT.

If a paid GA asked himself this question: "Shall I say or do what I think is the Lord's will if it conflicts with my boss or his boss?", the answer would be: YES, OBVIOUSLY.

3) The "can't lead you astray" WW excerpt was secretly added to our canon without an announcement, much less a vote. FACT.

The conflict of interest is found in asking the question, WHY would the Brethren do this secret deed? Such a secret addition to sacred canon CONFLICTS with what we all know to be LIGHT and common consent. OBVIOUSLY, the Brethren can't just go around secretly adding things to our canon, and then begin to incessantly teach it, as if it was valid in the first place. This was a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR dark deed, and the FACT of the deed is indisputable.

NOBODY here wants to consider the implication of WHY the Brethren would want to persuade the members to trust their salvation to the president of the Church.

4) The OD are canonized "declarations" and not revelations. The DC describes the sections as revelations. The OD are not described this way and not given a Section Number. They are exactly what they say they are, "Official Declarations". FACT.

Like the aforementioned facts, this is more blood on the cloak. But what does this blood point to? WHY do the Brethren want to try to convince members that these press releases (official declarations) are bonafide "revelations"? Isn't the OBVIOUS answer that they want members to submit to them and not ask questions. They want their pronouncements to be authoritative and binding, with as little protest from the membership as possible. Why? Well in the case of 1890, it's because leaders were being prosecuted and imprisoned and Church property was being confiscated by the government. In 1978, racism lawsuits were being filed and won left and right, and this is true TO THIS DAY. The corporation was protecting itself. Corporations can't discriminate based on RACE. The corporation submitted.

5) The 1981-added WW excerpt that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is a teaching that at the very least encourages members to place their faith in the president of the Church. FACT.

The crime this "blood on the cloak" points to is the blatant attempt to condition the minds of the members to accept what the president says as sanctioned by God. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 all highlight the conflict of interest between the will of the president and the will of God. The Church has swung for the fences and went "all in" on trying to persuade the members that the president's will is God's will. There was a massive push in 1981 to UNITE the president (the corporation) with the Lord, attempting to get the members to believe the utterances of the president are equal to the mind and will of the Lord. The "can't lead you astray" notion was designed to eradicate the conflict of interest between the president of the Corporation and the Lord.

6) It is a FACT that Joseph Smith and Emma testified Joseph was monogamous.

The implication of that being true is so huge that it would literally destroy the Church overnight. If such a truth was ever admitted by the Church, it would mean that the Church has been engaged in a decades-long propaganda campaign to deceive the membership into believing that Brigham's whoredoms began with the virtuous and holy prophet, Joseph Smith. It would mean Brigham was the founder of polygamy, and that the Church has been lying about Joseph.

7) The logical fallacy (if the BoM is true then Pres Nelson is a prophet) incessantly taught by the leaders. This is a FACT.

The implication? There is an overt attempt to gain a perception of having so-called "authority" in the eyes of the members. Any time a man attempts to gain/ exercise influence or power over others by pointing to his authority, "the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."


Is there any doubt that mainstream members want to avoid these implications like the plague? But why, one may ask?

ALL these implications can be true, and the BoM still be true, Christ still be the Savior, the Restoration through Joseph Smith be true, and God still lives! Does anything else matter besides Christ, anyway?

But what about my tradition, even the tradition of my fathers? What will the people in my ward or stake think about me if I acknowledge these implications? They might brand me as faithless, or worse, "apostate"! I might be cast out!

The mid term report card concludes that such implications are PAINFUL. They HURT! They threaten a foundation built on the sand of men jockeying for hierarchical stature where members trust in them because they can't lead them astray.

The reason for my questions largely being ignored is so that consideration of the implications can be avoided.

Here's the amazing thing. ALL of these 7 facts can be instantly rectified:

1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation that exists subject to the good and will and pleasure of the state. FACT.

Pres Nelson COULD announce, "Due to the conflict of interest between the state and the Lord, I immediately announce the termination of the Corporation. All assets are actually mine, and they will be transferred to my personal property."

If he was a legitimately honest, just, and equitable man, having the understanding of a regular member about who has a just right to the Church assets, he would probably say, "The billions of dollars of Church property will be liquidated, and equally distributed among all the active latter-day Saints worldwide. We will continue to preach the Gospel to the world, but do it sans a corporation and paid ministry, as was done in Joseph's day. No more conflicts of interest! Let the truth go forth with no strings attached to those who preach..."

2) The leaders draw a secret salary and perks. FACT.

The leaders COULD announce, "EVERYBODY in the Church is a lay minister now. Not just the stake presidents and bishops and teachers in Sunday School, etc. but EVERYONE, all the way up to the top. NO person with ecclesiastical duties to preach the gospel will get paid even one senine!"

3) The "can't lead you astray" WW excerpt was secretly added to our canon without an announcement, much less a vote. FACT.

The leaders COULD say, "We must correct a procedural blunder. We never presented the WW excerpts in 1981 as a revelation that warranted a vote to be adopted into our canon. We hereby withdraw them from the standard works."

4) The leaders could clarify, "The two OD's are not revelations, but official declarations or announcements. That's why they're not given Section numbers."

5) The 1981-added WW excerpt that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is a teaching that at the very least encourages members to place their faith in the president of the Church. FACT.

The leaders COULD say, "All men, even the president is fallible, and CAN lead you astray. Trust only God, and judge everything that comes from the president by the Scriptures and power of the Holy Ghost."

6) It is a FACT that Joseph Smith and Emma testified Joseph was monogamous. The leaders COULD say, "Let's find out if this it's true that he WAS a monogamist!"

7) The leaders COULD correct the logical fallacy and begin teaching the truth, "If the BoM is true then you may know Joseph Smith was sent to deliver a message from God! Let's study the BoM to discover God's message to us!"

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

This might be a fight somebody wants to take on. It would end certainly in excommunication.

It would go like this:

A member presents formal request to his bishop and /or stake president:
The "can't lead you astray" WW excerpt was secretly added to our canon in 1981 without an announcement, much less a vote. Since there was no vote, I request the excerpts added in 1981 be removed from our canon, or a vote be taken with an opportunity to debate the additions.

This is what would happen next.

1) The stake president would likely never submit this request to his Area Authority superior. But if he did, there would be a long delay in a response. Since factually, the member is correct, there could be no correction made to the facts. They are what they are.

2) The member would follow up many times, and be greeted with silence. The member would then go public with his request, since he was being ignored.

3) The stake president would tell him to stop the public discourse. The member would reply, "You all stop ignoring me. Let's talk about this, and make it right. Either vote on it, or remove it." The stake president would warn him to stop arguing with the Church authorities, meaning the stake president. The member persists in going public.

4) The stake president would then excommunicate the member.



Does anybody really think the outcome would be different? And do you condone the stake president's actions (knowing full well that SLC would be advising the SP to excommunicate the daring member)?

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Jonesy »

Topcat, you say all of these are “facts”, but isn’t that completely leaving out faith, discernment, and the Spirit? Is there no choice in the matter? What would you say it all comes down to? That there are no keys in the church?

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 12:03 pm Topcat, you say all of these are “facts”, but isn’t that completely leaving out faith, discernment, and the Spirit? Is there no choice in the matter? What would you say it all comes down to? That there are no keys in the church?
Well the facts are the facts, aren't they? I know some people say facts are optional.

Choice isn't involved in whether blood was on the cloak.

Choice is involved in considering the implication of the facts.

I'd say it all comes down to letting the truth or the facts speak for themselves.

If the truth or the facts are pointing to a certain conclusion like two plus two equals four, are we not negligent or culpable if we don't acknowledge the sum is 4?

Does an examination of the implications justify a belief that 2+2 doesn't equal 4?

With the small sampling of facts that I've given, along with the accompanying implications, can one reasonably make the case that something is not amiss with the integrity of the supposed key holders?

Or is the default answer to my question, "Yes there's something amiss, but it's the Lord's will. I'll let the Lord figure it out and fix it, meanwhile I will follow my leaders, as I've been promised they cannot lead me astray."

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Jonesy »

"Yes there's something amiss, but it's the Lord's will. I'll let the Lord figure it out and fix it, meanwhile I will follow my leaders, as I've been promised they cannot lead me astray."

If you think this is what I believe, then I can’t continue the discussion. There has to be some acknowledgement of my factoring these equations. I’ve already conceded the ones that may be right, but you don’t give me an inch with mine.

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 12:42 pm "Yes there's something amiss, but it's the Lord's will. I'll let the Lord figure it out and fix it, meanwhile I will follow my leaders, as I've been promised they cannot lead me astray."

If you think this is what I believe, then I can’t continue the discussion. There has to be some acknowledgement of my factoring these equations. I’ve already conceded the ones that may be right, but you don’t give me an inch with mine.
Jonesy,

I'm generalizing there. Nothing specific to you.

What are you asking of me to consider?

Thanks.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Jonesy »

topcat wrote: May 18th, 2019, 1:48 pm
Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 12:42 pm "Yes there's something amiss, but it's the Lord's will. I'll let the Lord figure it out and fix it, meanwhile I will follow my leaders, as I've been promised they cannot lead me astray."

If you think this is what I believe, then I can’t continue the discussion. There has to be some acknowledgement of my factoring these equations. I’ve already conceded the ones that may be right, but you don’t give me an inch with mine.
Jonesy,

I'm generalizing there. Nothing specific to you.

What are you asking of me to consider?

Thanks.
What would you say it all comes down to? That there are no keys in the church?

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Jonesy »

Do you recall when Moses and Joshua were forty days absent and the people rebelled with all manner of abominations in which Aaron had to raise them a golden calf or face death? We are in the same predicament. Did the Lord blame Aaron for the golden calf? No, He did not, because that is what the people wanted. The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires. If the people want a king like Saul, David or Obama to rule over them, He will give them a king to their own hurt. If they want an idol, he will give them an idol, even a goodly prophet for their own hurt. If they want Babylon and all her luxury and riches, He will grant them that to their own hurt. For where your treasure is, so is your god. If they want to worship God in truth, He will sanctify His own and lead them through His prophet. And when it appears that the people will worship him as an idol, like the Israelites worshiped the brazen serpent that was raised to heal them, He will bring it down and put another one in its place. So, when the prophets say that the leaders of this church will never lead us astray, they are not lying. That is what my compass tells me, and even if they are leading us to the brink of hell as Brigham Young said, it is because that is the destination of some.

The very same thing happened in the days of Moses when the presiding prophet of God and His called and appointed made it through the promised land. Some were swallowed by hell alive. And the same happened with Lehi and his crew, even though some of them got slothful, and rude, and driven back almost to the brink of destruction, they made it to the promised land. And even though the final destination was some five hundred years in the future, a few were righteous enough to meet the Risen Captain of old Zion's boat. And so it is with us, as long as we remain on the boat, and we listen to the presiding High Priest or prophet, and his appointed counselors that the Lord has chosen to assist him. We will get to our Zion, whether in this life or in the next; and even if our final destination was not Zion, some of our children will make it and that is all that matters. This is the Lord’s work and He does whatever He wants with us. For as Paul said, some of us are appointed vessels for glory and some of as are appointed to take in wrath. As long as His will be done.

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 2:07 pm
topcat wrote: May 18th, 2019, 1:48 pm
Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 12:42 pm "Yes there's something amiss, but it's the Lord's will. I'll let the Lord figure it out and fix it, meanwhile I will follow my leaders, as I've been promised they cannot lead me astray."

If you think this is what I believe, then I can’t continue the discussion. There has to be some acknowledgement of my factoring these equations. I’ve already conceded the ones that may be right, but you don’t give me an inch with mine.
Jonesy,

I'm generalizing there. Nothing specific to you.

What are you asking of me to consider?

Thanks.
What would you say it all comes down to? That there are no keys in the church?
Jonesy,

Is that the best question? Is that question even vital to UNDERSTANDING truth?

I mean, can one arrive at the truth without EVER even asking that question?

Does Moroni mention your question in Moroni 10:3-5?

May I ask, Why YOU are focused on that question? It must be extremely important to you. I would love to hear an honest and public self-evaluation as to why this question is important to you, in context of what relevance your question has in the process of learning what is true.

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 5:09 pm Do you recall when Moses and Joshua were forty days absent and the people rebelled with all manner of abominations in which Aaron had to raise them a golden calf or face death? We are in the same predicament. Did the Lord blame Aaron for the golden calf? No, He did not, because that is what the people wanted. The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires. Absolutely agreed. Now hold that thought as we consider your subsequent comments. If the people want a king like Saul, David or Obama to rule over them, He will give them a king to their own hurt. Very true. Good examples. You could throw in King Noah from the Book of Mosiah. And then there are the kings in the Book of Ether of whom the Brother of Jared and Jared prophesied would lead the people into captivity. If they want an idol, he will give them an idol Agreed. This is what you said above..."The Lord gives us according to our heartfelt desires", even a goodly prophet for their own hurt. Here's where I ask you to ponder a bit. It APPEARS you are ASSUMING the Lord will give a bonafide, true prophet that is duly sent by the Lord and who speaks face to face with the Lord. Am I correct in this assumption?

This is a keystone question I'm about to ask you, because depending on how you answer this question, your paradigm crumbles, just as Mormonism would crumble if the BoM weren't true. My question is, could the Lord give a false prophet, to just cut to the chase? A bit wordier of a question would be, Could the Lord give the people a man whom the people call a prophet, or whom calls himself a prophet?

Though you may resist answering that keystone question, you have actually ALREADY answered it. Your correct answer was your first sentence: "The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires."

I want to help you understand your probable resistance to answering my keystone question. So, rather than use the word "true prophet" or "false prophet," let's focus our attention on the "heartfelt desires" of the people. You've already said the Lord gives the people, and person, what they REALLY want. I may have just stumbled onto a line of thought that could be one of the most important articulations of truth ever expressed on this blog. It's not me, it's just the reality of things. The question: what do the mainstream Mormons desire from their very hearts?

Here's my summary of mainstream desires of the people. Therefore, it's not the leaders' fault one bit. Some or all of them might actually be "goodly" people, striving to give the people what they desire.

The mainstream desires this kind of "prophet":

In short, they desire a "prophet" who tells them what they WANT to hear. Namely, that they are a saved and chosen people. Softening the statement a bit, so as not to make the people appear to be too much like the Zoramites, the mainstream members want to be told that all is well with their salvation if they do what their "prophets" tell them to do. To be concrete, they WANT to hear they are saved if they do certain things (like be baptized, take out your temple endowments, get a temple marriage, maintain a current TR, and stay active and serve faithfully in the Church till you die); so...their "prophets" tell them that. "Just stay on the boat and you will be saved." This message has been mainstream Mormon doctrine for quite a while. This teaching is virtually omnipresent in the Church. I can provide volumes of quotes. I expect there's no argument from you or anybody reading this. And if we agree on the "just stay on the boat, the Good Ship Zion" teaching that is ubiquitously taught in the Church, then we might have some insight into why the Lord condemned the Church back in 1832 for vanity, which is defined as "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements." SALVATION is quite the achievement, wouldn't you say? The people believe it and THEIR "prophets" tell them so. It's a vicious cycle. They feed off each other. The people ask for comforting assurances they are saved, and their appetite is satisfied when their "prophets" dispense such a message; and on the other hand, the "prophets" want to be assured they are "prophets" and revered as holy men (but wearing fancy suits and shoes) so they "eat up" the adulation heaped upon them by the people. And what a surprise, the more the "prophets" tell the people that they are saved, what do you know!, the more the people reward the flattery with a never-ending supply of praise, even to the point that the people stand up in silent reverence when the "prophets" enter the room.

In summary, the mainstream members' heartfelt desires: to be told they are saved, that what they are doing is sufficient to get them saved. They want an "easy" path, if you will, that guarantees their salvation.

And one could guess at what the mainstream members do NOT desire. It would be the opposite of what they do want. The opposite would be to be told they must repent, and if they don't repent, salvation ain't going to happen. That way (true repentance) to salvation would not flatter them. The reason the Lectures on Faith were abandoned as "the doctrine" of the Church is because the lectures do not flatter the people. Sacrificing all earthly things is not something that the mainstream wants to hear, do you think?

...the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.

Lecture Sixth


Ouch! Not flattering at all. Gotta get rid of that, otherwise the people might not like what I'm preaching!

And just like that, WITHOUT A CHURCH VOTE (in 1921), the LoF were secretly removed from our canon.

Just an innocent act from the apostles, right?

But it's explained by the truth you stated, namely, "The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires." The mainstream wanted something easier. And their "prophets" gave it to them!


If they want Babylon and all her luxury and riches, He will grant them that to their own hurt. Yes, God grants things to us even if it will hurt us. He honors our agency. "I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction." For where your treasure is, so is your god. If they want to worship God in truth, He will sanctify His own and lead them through His prophet. Even the 'prophets" who flatter their itching ears and are fed by the people's overflowing praise? And when it appears that the people will worship him as an idol, like the Israelites worshiped the brazen serpent that was raised to heal them, He will bring it down and put another one in its place. So, when the prophets say that the leaders of this church will never lead us astray, they are not lying. I don't know if WW intentionally lied, or believed it, but he taught a teaching (the one added to our canon in 1981) straight from the mouth of Satan. That is what my compass tells me, and even if they are leading us to the brink of hell as Brigham Young said, it is because that is the destination of some. You admit they might be leading the people to the brink of hell? And that at the last moment something will happen to avert hell? Why not just get off the FTP train and not go to the brink of hell?

The very same thing happened in the days of Moses when the presiding prophet of God and His called and appointed made it through the promised land. Some were swallowed by hell alive. You mean the army of the Pharaoh? And the same happened with Lehi and his crew, even though some of them got slothful, and rude, and driven back almost to the brink of destruction, they made it to the promised land. And even though the final destination was some five hundred years in the future, a few were righteous enough to meet the Risen Captain of old Zion's boat. And so it is with us, as long as we remain on the boat, and we listen to the presiding High Priest or prophet, and his appointed counselors that the Lord has chosen to assist him. We will get to our Zion, whether in this life or in the next; and even if our final destination was not Zion, some of our children will make it and that is all that matters. This is the Lord’s work and He does whatever He wants with us. For as Paul said, some of us are appointed vessels for glory and some of as are appointed to take in wrath. As long as His will be done. You here echo what the mainstream "prophets" have been teaching. Just "remain on the boat, and listen to the presiding High Priest or prophet...[and] we will get to our Zion..."

Could this be the flattery that the BoM repeatedly warns us of. Think about it, the very thing you believe and are preaching (soothing words that flatter the mainstream crowd), was spelled out in the BoM. Several anti Christs came among the people preaching flattering words. What is the difference between the flattering words spoken today by the mainstream people's "prophets" and the BoM (Jacob 7:4, Mosiah 11:7, Mos 26:6, Mos 27:8, Alma 1:3-6, 12, Alma 30:47, and esp Helaman 13:28)?
My comments are embedded above in blue.

User avatar
Arandur
captain of 100
Posts: 129

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Arandur »

topcat wrote: May 20th, 2019, 10:41 am
Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 5:09 pm Do you recall when Moses and Joshua were forty days absent and the people rebelled with all manner of abominations in which Aaron had to raise them a golden calf or face death? We are in the same predicament. Did the Lord blame Aaron for the golden calf? No, He did not, because that is what the people wanted. The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires. Absolutely agreed. Now hold that thought as we consider your subsequent comments. If the people want a king like Saul, David or Obama to rule over them, He will give them a king to their own hurt. Very true. Good examples. You could throw in King Noah from the Book of Mosiah. And then there are the kings in the Book of Ether of whom the Brother of Jared and Jared prophesied would lead the people into captivity. If they want an idol, he will give them an idol Agreed. This is what you said above..."The Lord gives us according to our heartfelt desires", even a goodly prophet for their own hurt. Here's where I ask you to ponder a bit. It APPEARS you are ASSUMING the Lord will give a bonafide, true prophet that is duly sent by the Lord and who speaks face to face with the Lord. Am I correct in this assumption?

This is a keystone question I'm about to ask you, because depending on how you answer this question, your paradigm crumbles, just as Mormonism would crumble if the BoM weren't true. My question is, could the Lord give a false prophet, to just cut to the chase? A bit wordier of a question would be, Could the Lord give the people a man whom the people call a prophet, or whom calls himself a prophet?

Though you may resist answering that keystone question, you have actually ALREADY answered it. Your correct answer was your first sentence: "The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires."

I want to help you understand your probable resistance to answering my keystone question. So, rather than use the word "true prophet" or "false prophet," let's focus our attention on the "heartfelt desires" of the people. You've already said the Lord gives the people, and person, what they REALLY want. I may have just stumbled onto a line of thought that could be one of the most important articulations of truth ever expressed on this blog. It's not me, it's just the reality of things. The question: what do the mainstream Mormons desire from their very hearts?

Here's my summary of mainstream desires of the people. Therefore, it's not the leaders' fault one bit. Some or all of them might actually be "goodly" people, striving to give the people what they desire.

The mainstream desires this kind of "prophet":

In short, they desire a "prophet" who tells them what they WANT to hear. Namely, that they are a saved and chosen people. Softening the statement a bit, so as not to make the people appear to be too much like the Zoramites, the mainstream members want to be told that all is well with their salvation if they do what their "prophets" tell them to do. To be concrete, they WANT to hear they are saved if they do certain things (like be baptized, take out your temple endowments, get a temple marriage, maintain a current TR, and stay active and serve faithfully in the Church till you die); so...their "prophets" tell them that. "Just stay on the boat and you will be saved." This message has been mainstream Mormon doctrine for quite a while. This teaching is virtually omnipresent in the Church. I can provide volumes of quotes. I expect there's no argument from you or anybody reading this. And if we agree on the "just stay on the boat, the Good Ship Zion" teaching that is ubiquitously taught in the Church, then we might have some insight into why the Lord condemned the Church back in 1832 for vanity, which is defined as "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements." SALVATION is quite the achievement, wouldn't you say? The people believe it and THEIR "prophets" tell them so. It's a vicious cycle. They feed off each other. The people ask for comforting assurances they are saved, and their appetite is satisfied when their "prophets" dispense such a message; and on the other hand, the "prophets" want to be assured they are "prophets" and revered as holy men (but wearing fancy suits and shoes) so they "eat up" the adulation heaped upon them by the people. And what a surprise, the more the "prophets" tell the people that they are saved, what do you know!, the more the people reward the flattery with a never-ending supply of praise, even to the point that the people stand up in silent reverence when the "prophets" enter the room.

In summary, the mainstream members' heartfelt desires: to be told they are saved, that what they are doing is sufficient to get them saved. They want an "easy" path, if you will, that guarantees their salvation.

And one could guess at what the mainstream members do NOT desire. It would be the opposite of what they do want. The opposite would be to be told they must repent, and if they don't repent, salvation ain't going to happen. That way (true repentance) to salvation would not flatter them. The reason the Lectures on Faith were abandoned as "the doctrine" of the Church is because the lectures do not flatter the people. Sacrificing all earthly things is not something that the mainstream wants to hear, do you think?

...the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.

Lecture Sixth


Ouch! Not flattering at all. Gotta get rid of that, otherwise the people might not like what I'm preaching!

And just like that, WITHOUT A CHURCH VOTE (in 1921), the LoF were secretly removed from our canon.

Just an innocent act from the apostles, right?

But it's explained by the truth you stated, namely, "The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires." The mainstream wanted something easier. And their "prophets" gave it to them!


If they want Babylon and all her luxury and riches, He will grant them that to their own hurt. Yes, God grants things to us even if it will hurt us. He honors our agency. "I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction." For where your treasure is, so is your god. If they want to worship God in truth, He will sanctify His own and lead them through His prophet. Even the 'prophets" who flatter their itching ears and are fed by the people's overflowing praise? And when it appears that the people will worship him as an idol, like the Israelites worshiped the brazen serpent that was raised to heal them, He will bring it down and put another one in its place. So, when the prophets say that the leaders of this church will never lead us astray, they are not lying. I don't know if WW intentionally lied, or believed it, but he taught a teaching (the one added to our canon in 1981) straight from the mouth of Satan. That is what my compass tells me, and even if they are leading us to the brink of hell as Brigham Young said, it is because that is the destination of some. You admit they might be leading the people to the brink of hell? And that at the last moment something will happen to avert hell? Why not just get off the FTP train and not go to the brink of hell?

The very same thing happened in the days of Moses when the presiding prophet of God and His called and appointed made it through the promised land. Some were swallowed by hell alive. You mean the army of the Pharaoh? And the same happened with Lehi and his crew, even though some of them got slothful, and rude, and driven back almost to the brink of destruction, they made it to the promised land. And even though the final destination was some five hundred years in the future, a few were righteous enough to meet the Risen Captain of old Zion's boat. And so it is with us, as long as we remain on the boat, and we listen to the presiding High Priest or prophet, and his appointed counselors that the Lord has chosen to assist him. We will get to our Zion, whether in this life or in the next; and even if our final destination was not Zion, some of our children will make it and that is all that matters. This is the Lord’s work and He does whatever He wants with us. For as Paul said, some of us are appointed vessels for glory and some of as are appointed to take in wrath. As long as His will be done. You here echo what the mainstream "prophets" have been teaching. Just "remain on the boat, and listen to the presiding High Priest or prophet...[and] we will get to our Zion..."

Could this be the flattery that the BoM repeatedly warns us of. Think about it, the very thing you believe and are preaching (soothing words that flatter the mainstream crowd), was spelled out in the BoM. Several anti Christs came among the people preaching flattering words. What is the difference between the flattering words spoken today by the mainstream people's "prophets" and the BoM (Jacob 7:4, Mosiah 11:7, Mos 26:6, Mos 27:8, Alma 1:3-6, 12, Alma 30:47, and esp Helaman 13:28)?
My comments are embedded above in blue.
I don’t agree with you on a lot of things topcat. I don’t even agree with everything you say here, particularly the notion that the prophets are “false prophets”, depending on what you mean by false. You yourself opt to set the idea aside for most of the post. The core idea you present here about what the general membership truly desires, however, is vital to unraveling this puzzle of the gospel and the church. Our desires absolutely influence the teaching we receive, much to our detriment.
Alma 12:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
Very well said.

User avatar
Arandur
captain of 100
Posts: 129

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Arandur »

Samuel, Nephi, and the Brother of Jared all gave the people kings, against their own desires. I wonder of the leaders of the church today find themselves required to do something similar.

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Arandur wrote: May 20th, 2019, 11:25 am Samuel, Nephi, and the Brother of Jared all gave the people kings, against their own desires. I wonder of the leaders of the church today find themselves required to do something similar.
The Scriptures plainly teach (1 Sam 8, Mosiah 29, and the Book of Ether) that kings lead to captivity. But, let's look a little deeper. Is it the very title/ name of the office, is it the word "king" that leads to tyranny (loss of Liberty, and oppression)?

Perhaps what leads to corruption, or apostasy from the truth is something more common and known to us, but we (esp mainstream Mormons) can't bring ourselves to admit it's happening AMONG US!

Corruption occurs when power is centralized. I'm not speaking of God's power, because He says "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood." The power I speak of is the so-called "right to govern," the power to legislate, direct, and control. The Founding Fathers did their level best to diversify the power so neither the judicial, executive, or legislative branches would assume too much "power." But even their experiment failed, as for many years we have had a ruling oligarchy whereby all three branches of gov't conspire together to overthrow the Liberty of the people.

In Handbook 2 Section 2.1.1, it reads:
Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. The exercise of priesthood authority is governed by those who hold its keys (see Doctrine and Covenants 65:2; 81:2; 124:123). Those who hold priesthood keys have the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.

The three scripture citations above don't define the priesthood keys as this paragraph defines it. In fact, DC 121 famously destroys such a wildly authoritarian definition. And yet, Section 2.1.1 has become defacto doctrine, and certainly is the tradition in which mainstream Mormons are raised. It should be alarming.

The point is this: centralized power corrupts. A monarchy is an obvious illustration of centralized power. But what about the hierarchy of the LDS Church?

How many of these questions are answered with a resounding YES?

1) There exists a carefully-defined hierarchy.
2) Everyone knows who is presiding in any given meeting.
3) The president of the entire Church (Pres Nelson currently) is the top authority of the Church. His word is akin to God's word. Much respect is given him.
4) Virtually any criticism of Pres Nelson (or even the apostles or GA's) is considered "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" and is considered improper at the very least, and worthy of excommunication at worst.
5) Opposition to the centralized hierarchy is frowned upon. First, you're asked to stand down, even if your side is doctrinally sound. Then you are threatened with disciplinary action and finally excommunicated if you resist their direction.
6) If you have the "keys" you have the right to revelation, and as such, members are taught to pay close attention to and indeed heed the direction of the keys-holding person.
7) If you disobey or refuse to be corrected by your local authority, you are considered "apostate" (Section 6.7.3 of CHI1).
8) The Church is run TOP-DOWN. The Top dictates what people below do. Characteristics of this top-down leadership would be strict correlation of what happens in all the local units. SLC dictates precisely what each ward will do, teach, say each Sunday, as far as meeting format, and curriculum.

You get the picture. All of these questions get a big fat YES for an answer. I could add many more.

In summary, a king or monarchy leads to corruption, tyranny, captivity, deprivation and destruction of Liberty because power is centralized. The warning of 1 Sam 8, and Alma and King Mosiah in Mosiah 29 and the Brother of Jared and Jared was not to avoid kings, per se, but to avoid the centralization of power. It was to avoid hierarchy.

King Benjamin was a king, but how different he was. He didn't tax the people, and took no money from them. He labored with his own hands for his support. He obviously had a different philosophy of what a godly king is or should be. King Noah, Zeniff's son, was what Alma and King Mosiah had in mind when they warned against monarchy. And in fact, King Noah's wickedness was cited and detailed.



So when Jonesy or Arandur think out loud like above, "I wonder if the leaders of the church today find themselves required to do something similar," I want to beg them to see that the LEADERS themselves are ALREADY A PART OF the hierarchical structure which is what past prophets have warned about.

Our leaders aren't the solution to the problem, they ARE the problem (reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's famous quote about government), or stated more accurately, the hierarchical structure is the problem. Think about what you just said, Arandur. You correctly point to the warnings of the past prophets about monarchical hierarchy, and then you wonder if the LDS leadership today feel they are required to [give similar warnings as past true prophets did]. You're on the right track, but if you follow through on your instincts, you will realize that such a "requirement by the Lord of the current leaders" would require the leaders to STEP DOWN from their positions of stature/power/hierarchy/wealth (they run a corp worth tens of billions of dollars)/fame (they are rock stars in their own communities!).

They are revered as KINGS right now. They would have to depose themselves!!

Do I believe the Lord HAS asked them to step down? Yes I do. He's called for their repentance. It's a matter of record. They chose to remain in so-called power. But that's another story.

The point is that this whole "king conversation" which Jonesy brought up is referring to centralized power.

And it's futile to attempt to separate the scriptural warnings about kings leading to corruption from ANY centralized power also leading to corruption.

A king = centralized hierarchy

BOTH historically lead to captivity. It's not an absolute destiny, because there ARE exceptions. Your mistake is in ASSUMING that the current batch of "kings" are exempt from corruption and can't lead us astray. But history doesn't back you up, and the facts detailed in this very thread point to existing corruption that history says will inevitably occur.

Jonesy CORRECTLY teaches that the people got what they wanted in 1 Sam 8. And I believe the saints got what they wanted when they demanded a NT Church hierarchy. Joseph said, "okay, you want it? You got it!"

But interestingly, Joseph's version (DC 107) clearly DE-centralized the hierarchy, but as soon as he was murdered, what did Brigham do? He ignored DC 107 and quickly CENTRALIZED all "power" and began a corrupt tradition which we have today when censorship is rampant and people who see the light are cast out for daring to say even what I just said in this comment.

If I were to start openly teaching the content of my comment here, they'd excommunicate me quicker than you could say, "But what about the principles in DC 121?"

A scriptural argument won't save you from excommunication, but obedience to the hierarchy will!! EVERY time!
Last edited by topcat on May 20th, 2019, 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Arandur wrote: May 20th, 2019, 11:19 am
topcat wrote: May 20th, 2019, 10:41 am
Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 5:09 pm Do you recall when Moses and Joshua were forty days absent and the people rebelled with all manner of abominations in which Aaron had to raise them a golden calf or face death? We are in the same predicament. Did the Lord blame Aaron for the golden calf? No, He did not, because that is what the people wanted. The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires. Absolutely agreed. Now hold that thought as we consider your subsequent comments. If the people want a king like Saul, David or Obama to rule over them, He will give them a king to their own hurt. Very true. Good examples. You could throw in King Noah from the Book of Mosiah. And then there are the kings in the Book of Ether of whom the Brother of Jared and Jared prophesied would lead the people into captivity. If they want an idol, he will give them an idol Agreed. This is what you said above..."The Lord gives us according to our heartfelt desires", even a goodly prophet for their own hurt. Here's where I ask you to ponder a bit. It APPEARS you are ASSUMING the Lord will give a bonafide, true prophet that is duly sent by the Lord and who speaks face to face with the Lord. Am I correct in this assumption?

This is a keystone question I'm about to ask you, because depending on how you answer this question, your paradigm crumbles, just as Mormonism would crumble if the BoM weren't true. My question is, could the Lord give a false prophet, to just cut to the chase? A bit wordier of a question would be, Could the Lord give the people a man whom the people call a prophet, or whom calls himself a prophet?

Though you may resist answering that keystone question, you have actually ALREADY answered it. Your correct answer was your first sentence: "The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires."

I want to help you understand your probable resistance to answering my keystone question. So, rather than use the word "true prophet" or "false prophet," let's focus our attention on the "heartfelt desires" of the people. You've already said the Lord gives the people, and person, what they REALLY want. I may have just stumbled onto a line of thought that could be one of the most important articulations of truth ever expressed on this blog. It's not me, it's just the reality of things. The question: what do the mainstream Mormons desire from their very hearts?

Here's my summary of mainstream desires of the people. Therefore, it's not the leaders' fault one bit. Some or all of them might actually be "goodly" people, striving to give the people what they desire.

The mainstream desires this kind of "prophet":

In short, they desire a "prophet" who tells them what they WANT to hear. Namely, that they are a saved and chosen people. Softening the statement a bit, so as not to make the people appear to be too much like the Zoramites, the mainstream members want to be told that all is well with their salvation if they do what their "prophets" tell them to do. To be concrete, they WANT to hear they are saved if they do certain things (like be baptized, take out your temple endowments, get a temple marriage, maintain a current TR, and stay active and serve faithfully in the Church till you die); so...their "prophets" tell them that. "Just stay on the boat and you will be saved." This message has been mainstream Mormon doctrine for quite a while. This teaching is virtually omnipresent in the Church. I can provide volumes of quotes. I expect there's no argument from you or anybody reading this. And if we agree on the "just stay on the boat, the Good Ship Zion" teaching that is ubiquitously taught in the Church, then we might have some insight into why the Lord condemned the Church back in 1832 for vanity, which is defined as "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements." SALVATION is quite the achievement, wouldn't you say? The people believe it and THEIR "prophets" tell them so. It's a vicious cycle. They feed off each other. The people ask for comforting assurances they are saved, and their appetite is satisfied when their "prophets" dispense such a message; and on the other hand, the "prophets" want to be assured they are "prophets" and revered as holy men (but wearing fancy suits and shoes) so they "eat up" the adulation heaped upon them by the people. And what a surprise, the more the "prophets" tell the people that they are saved, what do you know!, the more the people reward the flattery with a never-ending supply of praise, even to the point that the people stand up in silent reverence when the "prophets" enter the room.

In summary, the mainstream members' heartfelt desires: to be told they are saved, that what they are doing is sufficient to get them saved. They want an "easy" path, if you will, that guarantees their salvation.

And one could guess at what the mainstream members do NOT desire. It would be the opposite of what they do want. The opposite would be to be told they must repent, and if they don't repent, salvation ain't going to happen. That way (true repentance) to salvation would not flatter them. The reason the Lectures on Faith were abandoned as "the doctrine" of the Church is because the lectures do not flatter the people. Sacrificing all earthly things is not something that the mainstream wants to hear, do you think?

...the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.

Lecture Sixth


Ouch! Not flattering at all. Gotta get rid of that, otherwise the people might not like what I'm preaching!

And just like that, WITHOUT A CHURCH VOTE (in 1921), the LoF were secretly removed from our canon.

Just an innocent act from the apostles, right?

But it's explained by the truth you stated, namely, "The Lord gives us all according to our heartfelt desires." The mainstream wanted something easier. And their "prophets" gave it to them!


If they want Babylon and all her luxury and riches, He will grant them that to their own hurt. Yes, God grants things to us even if it will hurt us. He honors our agency. "I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction." For where your treasure is, so is your god. If they want to worship God in truth, He will sanctify His own and lead them through His prophet. Even the 'prophets" who flatter their itching ears and are fed by the people's overflowing praise? And when it appears that the people will worship him as an idol, like the Israelites worshiped the brazen serpent that was raised to heal them, He will bring it down and put another one in its place. So, when the prophets say that the leaders of this church will never lead us astray, they are not lying. I don't know if WW intentionally lied, or believed it, but he taught a teaching (the one added to our canon in 1981) straight from the mouth of Satan. That is what my compass tells me, and even if they are leading us to the brink of hell as Brigham Young said, it is because that is the destination of some. You admit they might be leading the people to the brink of hell? And that at the last moment something will happen to avert hell? Why not just get off the FTP train and not go to the brink of hell?

The very same thing happened in the days of Moses when the presiding prophet of God and His called and appointed made it through the promised land. Some were swallowed by hell alive. You mean the army of the Pharaoh? And the same happened with Lehi and his crew, even though some of them got slothful, and rude, and driven back almost to the brink of destruction, they made it to the promised land. And even though the final destination was some five hundred years in the future, a few were righteous enough to meet the Risen Captain of old Zion's boat. And so it is with us, as long as we remain on the boat, and we listen to the presiding High Priest or prophet, and his appointed counselors that the Lord has chosen to assist him. We will get to our Zion, whether in this life or in the next; and even if our final destination was not Zion, some of our children will make it and that is all that matters. This is the Lord’s work and He does whatever He wants with us. For as Paul said, some of us are appointed vessels for glory and some of as are appointed to take in wrath. As long as His will be done. You here echo what the mainstream "prophets" have been teaching. Just "remain on the boat, and listen to the presiding High Priest or prophet...[and] we will get to our Zion..."

Could this be the flattery that the BoM repeatedly warns us of. Think about it, the very thing you believe and are preaching (soothing words that flatter the mainstream crowd), was spelled out in the BoM. Several anti Christs came among the people preaching flattering words. What is the difference between the flattering words spoken today by the mainstream people's "prophets" and the BoM (Jacob 7:4, Mosiah 11:7, Mos 26:6, Mos 27:8, Alma 1:3-6, 12, Alma 30:47, and esp Helaman 13:28)?
My comments are embedded above in blue.
I don’t agree with you on a lot of things topcat. I don’t even agree with everything you say here, particularly the notion that the prophets are “false prophets”, depending on what you mean by false. You yourself opt to set the idea aside for most of the post. The core idea you present here about what the general membership truly desires, however, is vital to unraveling this puzzle of the gospel and the church. Our desires absolutely influence the teaching we receive, much to our detriment.
Alma 12:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
Very well said.
You are interested in "unraveling this puzzle of the gospel and the church."

How would you define the puzzle? And why does it need to be unraveled? What's the problem, and what's the solution to the problem?

Thanks.

User avatar
Arandur
captain of 100
Posts: 129

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by Arandur »

topcat wrote: May 20th, 2019, 1:36 pm
Arandur wrote: May 20th, 2019, 11:25 am Samuel, Nephi, and the Brother of Jared all gave the people kings, against their own desires. I wonder of the leaders of the church today find themselves required to do something similar.
The Scriptures plainly teach (1 Sam 8, Mosiah 29, and the Book of Ether) that kings lead to captivity. But, let's look a little deeper. Is it the very title/ name of the office, is it the word "king" that leads to tyranny (loss of Liberty, and oppression)?

Perhaps what leads to corruption, or apostasy from the truth is something more common and known to us, but we (esp mainstream Mormons) can't bring ourselves to admit it's happening AMONG US!

Corruption occurs when power is centralized. I'm not speaking of God's power, because He says "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood." The power I speak of is the so-called "right to govern," the power to legislate, direct, and control. The Founding Fathers did their level best to diversify the power so neither the judicial, executive, or legislative branches would assume too much "power." But even their experiment failed, as for many years we have had a ruling oligarchy whereby all three branches of gov't conspire together to overthrow the Liberty of the people.

In Handbook 2 Section 2.1.1, it reads:
Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. The exercise of priesthood authority is governed by those who hold its keys (see Doctrine and Covenants 65:2; 81:2; 124:123). Those who hold priesthood keys have the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.

The three scripture citations above don't define the priesthood keys as this paragraph defines it. In fact, DC 121 famously destroys such a wildly authoritarian definition. And yet, Section 2.1.1 has become defacto doctrine, and certainly is the tradition in which mainstream Mormons are raised. It should be alarming.

The point is this: centralized power corrupts. A monarchy is an obvious illustration of centralized power. But what about the hierarchy of the LDS Church?

How many of these questions are answered with a resounding YES?

1) There exists a carefully-defined hierarchy.
2) Everyone knows who is presiding in any given meeting.
3) The president of the entire Church (Pres Nelson currently) is the top authority of the Church. His word is akin to God's word. Much respect is given him.
4) Virtually any criticism of Pres Nelson (or even the apostles or GA's) is considered "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" and is considered improper at the very least, and worthy of excommunication at worst.
5) Opposition to the centralized hierarchy is frowned upon. First, you're asked to stand down, even if your side is doctrinally sound. Then you are threatened with disciplinary action and finally excommunicated if you resist their direction.
6) If you have the "keys" you have the right to revelation, and as such, members are taught to pay close attention to and indeed heed the direction of the keys-holding person.
7) If you disobey or refuse to be corrected by your local authority, you are considered "apostate" (Section 6.7.3 of CHI1).
8) The Church is run TOP-DOWN. The Top dictates what people below do. Characteristics of this top-down leadership would be strict correlation of what happens in all the local units. SLC dictates precisely what each ward will do, teach, say each Sunday, as far as meeting format, and curriculum.

You get the picture. All of these questions get a big fat YES for an answer. I could add many more.

In summary, a king or monarchy leads to corruption, tyranny, captivity, deprivation and destruction of Liberty because power is centralized. The warning of 1 Sam 8, and Alma and King Mosiah in Mosiah 29 and the Brother of Jared and Jared was not to avoid kings, per se, but to avoid the centralization of power. It was to avoid hierarchy.

King Benjamin was a king, but how different he was. He didn't tax the people, and took no money from them. He labored with his own hands for his support. He obviously had a different philosophy of what a godly king is or should be. King Noah, Zeniff's son, was what Alma and King Mosiah had in mind when they warned against monarchy. And in fact, King Noah's wickedness was cited and detailed.



So when Jonesy or Arandur think out loud like above, "I wonder if the leaders of the church today find themselves required to do something similar," I want to beg them to see that the LEADERS themselves are ALREADY A PART OF the hierarchical structure which is what past prophets have warned about.

Our leaders aren't the solution to the problem, they ARE the problem (reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's famous quote about government), or stated more accurately, the hierarchical structure is the problem. Think about what you just said, Arandur. You correctly point to the warnings of the past prophets about monarchical hierarchy, and then you wonder if the LDS leadership today feel they are required to [give similar warnings as past true prophets did]. You're on the right track, but if you follow through on your instincts, you will realize that such a "requirement by the Lord of the current leaders" would require the leaders to STEP DOWN from their positions of stature/power/hierarchy/wealth (they run a corp worth tens of billions of dollars)/fame (they are rock stars in their own communities!).

They are revered as KINGS right now. They would have to depose themselves!!

Do I believe the Lord HAS asked them to step down? Yes I do. He's called for their repentance. It's a matter of record. They chose to remain in so-called power. But that's another story.

The point is that this whole "king conversation" which Jonesy brought up is referring to centralized power.

And it's futile to attempt to separate the scriptural warnings about kings leading to corruption from ANY centralized power also leading to corruption.

A king = centralized hierarchy

BOTH historically lead to captivity. It's not an absolute destiny, because there ARE exceptions. Your mistake is in ASSUMING that the current batch of "kings" are exempt from corruption and can't lead us astray. But history doesn't back you up, and the facts detailed in this very thread point to existing corruption that history says will inevitably occur.

Jonesy CORRECTLY teaches that the people got what they wanted in 1 Sam 8. And I believe the saints got what they wanted when they demanded a NT Church hierarchy. Joseph said, "okay, you want it? You got it!"

But interestingly, Joseph's version (DC 107) clearly DE-centralized the hierarchy, but as soon as he was murdered, what did Brigham do? He ignored DC 107 and quickly CENTRALIZED all "power" and began a corrupt tradition which we have today when censorship is rampant and people who see the light are cast out for daring to say even what I just said in this comment.

If I were to start openly teaching the content of my comment here, they'd excommunicate me quicker than you could say, "But what about the principles in DC 121?"

A scriptural argument won't save you from excommunication, but obedience to the hierarchy will!! EVERY time!
I’ll try to address this more fully, as well as the questions you pose in your other post, in a while when I have a larger block of time available and after I’ve reread sections 107 and 121.

For now, I take your central point to be more or less encompassed by your statements “centralized power corrupts”, “the hierarchical structure is the problem”, and “the LEADERS themselves are ALREADY A PART OF the hierarchical structure” which presumably has centralized power. If that’s not quite the root of it, it will save us both a lot of trouble if you can say so, and point me in the right direction.

Until later, I’ll just state that I do not agree that the first two statements hold universally. The third, I’ll acknowledge as a clear matter of fact, but this alone doesn’t refute (in a way that’s plain to me) the possibility that the leaders find themselves required to be there. Perhaps reading sections 107 and 121 in light of your case will clarify it.

User avatar
topcat
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1645

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by topcat »

Arandur wrote: May 20th, 2019, 3:33 pm
topcat wrote: May 20th, 2019, 1:36 pm
Arandur wrote: May 20th, 2019, 11:25 am Samuel, Nephi, and the Brother of Jared all gave the people kings, against their own desires. I wonder of the leaders of the church today find themselves required to do something similar.
The Scriptures plainly teach (1 Sam 8, Mosiah 29, and the Book of Ether) that kings lead to captivity. But, let's look a little deeper. Is it the very title/ name of the office, is it the word "king" that leads to tyranny (loss of Liberty, and oppression)?

Perhaps what leads to corruption, or apostasy from the truth is something more common and known to us, but we (esp mainstream Mormons) can't bring ourselves to admit it's happening AMONG US!

Corruption occurs when power is centralized. I'm not speaking of God's power, because He says "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood." The power I speak of is the so-called "right to govern," the power to legislate, direct, and control. The Founding Fathers did their level best to diversify the power so neither the judicial, executive, or legislative branches would assume too much "power." But even their experiment failed, as for many years we have had a ruling oligarchy whereby all three branches of gov't conspire together to overthrow the Liberty of the people.

In Handbook 2 Section 2.1.1, it reads:
Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. The exercise of priesthood authority is governed by those who hold its keys (see Doctrine and Covenants 65:2; 81:2; 124:123). Those who hold priesthood keys have the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.

The three scripture citations above don't define the priesthood keys as this paragraph defines it. In fact, DC 121 famously destroys such a wildly authoritarian definition. And yet, Section 2.1.1 has become defacto doctrine, and certainly is the tradition in which mainstream Mormons are raised. It should be alarming.

The point is this: centralized power corrupts. A monarchy is an obvious illustration of centralized power. But what about the hierarchy of the LDS Church?

How many of these questions are answered with a resounding YES?

1) There exists a carefully-defined hierarchy.
2) Everyone knows who is presiding in any given meeting.
3) The president of the entire Church (Pres Nelson currently) is the top authority of the Church. His word is akin to God's word. Much respect is given him.
4) Virtually any criticism of Pres Nelson (or even the apostles or GA's) is considered "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" and is considered improper at the very least, and worthy of excommunication at worst.
5) Opposition to the centralized hierarchy is frowned upon. First, you're asked to stand down, even if your side is doctrinally sound. Then you are threatened with disciplinary action and finally excommunicated if you resist their direction.
6) If you have the "keys" you have the right to revelation, and as such, members are taught to pay close attention to and indeed heed the direction of the keys-holding person.
7) If you disobey or refuse to be corrected by your local authority, you are considered "apostate" (Section 6.7.3 of CHI1).
8) The Church is run TOP-DOWN. The Top dictates what people below do. Characteristics of this top-down leadership would be strict correlation of what happens in all the local units. SLC dictates precisely what each ward will do, teach, say each Sunday, as far as meeting format, and curriculum.

You get the picture. All of these questions get a big fat YES for an answer. I could add many more.

In summary, a king or monarchy leads to corruption, tyranny, captivity, deprivation and destruction of Liberty because power is centralized. The warning of 1 Sam 8, and Alma and King Mosiah in Mosiah 29 and the Brother of Jared and Jared was not to avoid kings, per se, but to avoid the centralization of power. It was to avoid hierarchy.

King Benjamin was a king, but how different he was. He didn't tax the people, and took no money from them. He labored with his own hands for his support. He obviously had a different philosophy of what a godly king is or should be. King Noah, Zeniff's son, was what Alma and King Mosiah had in mind when they warned against monarchy. And in fact, King Noah's wickedness was cited and detailed.



So when Jonesy or Arandur think out loud like above, "I wonder if the leaders of the church today find themselves required to do something similar," I want to beg them to see that the LEADERS themselves are ALREADY A PART OF the hierarchical structure which is what past prophets have warned about.

Our leaders aren't the solution to the problem, they ARE the problem (reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's famous quote about government), or stated more accurately, the hierarchical structure is the problem. Think about what you just said, Arandur. You correctly point to the warnings of the past prophets about monarchical hierarchy, and then you wonder if the LDS leadership today feel they are required to [give similar warnings as past true prophets did]. You're on the right track, but if you follow through on your instincts, you will realize that such a "requirement by the Lord of the current leaders" would require the leaders to STEP DOWN from their positions of stature/power/hierarchy/wealth (they run a corp worth tens of billions of dollars)/fame (they are rock stars in their own communities!).

They are revered as KINGS right now. They would have to depose themselves!!

Do I believe the Lord HAS asked them to step down? Yes I do. He's called for their repentance. It's a matter of record. They chose to remain in so-called power. But that's another story.

The point is that this whole "king conversation" which Jonesy brought up is referring to centralized power.

And it's futile to attempt to separate the scriptural warnings about kings leading to corruption from ANY centralized power also leading to corruption.

A king = centralized hierarchy

BOTH historically lead to captivity. It's not an absolute destiny, because there ARE exceptions. Your mistake is in ASSUMING that the current batch of "kings" are exempt from corruption and can't lead us astray. But history doesn't back you up, and the facts detailed in this very thread point to existing corruption that history says will inevitably occur.

Jonesy CORRECTLY teaches that the people got what they wanted in 1 Sam 8. And I believe the saints got what they wanted when they demanded a NT Church hierarchy. Joseph said, "okay, you want it? You got it!"

But interestingly, Joseph's version (DC 107) clearly DE-centralized the hierarchy, but as soon as he was murdered, what did Brigham do? He ignored DC 107 and quickly CENTRALIZED all "power" and began a corrupt tradition which we have today when censorship is rampant and people who see the light are cast out for daring to say even what I just said in this comment.

If I were to start openly teaching the content of my comment here, they'd excommunicate me quicker than you could say, "But what about the principles in DC 121?"

A scriptural argument won't save you from excommunication, but obedience to the hierarchy will!! EVERY time!
I’ll try to address this more fully, as well as the questions you pose in your other post, in a while when I have a larger block of time available and after I’ve reread sections 107 and 121.

For now, I take your central point to be more or less encompassed by your statements “centralized power corrupts”, “the hierarchical structure is the problem”, and “the LEADERS themselves are ALREADY A PART OF the hierarchical structure” which presumably has centralized power. If that’s not quite the root of it, it will save us both a lot of trouble if you can say so, and point me in the right direction.

Until later, I’ll just state that I do not agree that the first two statements hold universally. The third, I’ll acknowledge as a clear matter of fact, but this alone doesn’t refute (in a way that’s plain to me) the possibility that the leaders find themselves required to be there. Perhaps reading sections 107 and 121 in light of your case will clarify it.
Yes that's the gist of it. You did a good job of summing it up I believe.

And as I noted as well, I don't believe that it's a universal truth; but it's a historical truth, that centralized power leads to captivity, as the brother of Jared prophesied. The word King was used:
21And it came to pass that they did number their people; and after that they had numbered them, they did desire of them the things which they would that they should do before they went down to their graves.
22And it came to pass that the people desired of them that they should anoint one of their sons to be a king over them.
23And now behold, this was grievous unto them. And the brother of Jared said unto them: Surely this thing leadeth into captivity.
Mosiah 29 could be quoted in its entirety to prove my point. 1st Samuel 8 as well.

From Mos 29, we get this nugget:
16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.
He is talking about centralized power here, and specifically a monarchy.

But there is no doubt he's talking about a centralization of power, because what he proposes is a decentralization of power in v.25-27.

He knew that corruption is much harder to occur when power is not centralized, but spread out over the people and when the people are governed by their laws and elected judges, a republican form of government that looks very familiar to Americans.

But even then, his caveat was that this won't last if the people are as a whole unrighteous.

The main takeaway from Mosiah 29 and 1st Samuel 8, and the Book of Ether is to avoid a centralization of power, to avoid a structure where power is centralized in an hierarchy.

A fact that Jesus chose 12 disciples in Jerusalem and in the land of Bountiful, doesn't mean what we think it means. We Gentile Mormons think it refers to some corporate structure, where he gave power and authority to control others, and we look past the obvious connection to what the number 12 symbolized and pointed us to.

DC 107 was given so that "corporate, control" mindset would be put to rest or dismantled before it even formed. But Brigham Young had other things in mind.

The fact that the centralization-of-power-destroying rules put in place in DC 107 are completely ignored and have been for decades is prima facia evidence of foul play by the Adversary.
Last edited by topcat on May 20th, 2019, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

Post by shadow »

Jonesy wrote: May 18th, 2019, 12:05 am

I would say your focus may be off. Because the foundation of Christ is most certainly planted with keys and priesthood. Nowhere else is that available on earth than in the church. So, we should use the keys given us. Not focus on men and their inadequacies.
You'll find it difficult to discuss with anyone who only seeks after faults, never understanding an important foundational principle-

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

A list of "the things of God' include living Prophets and Apostles, a restored church, Priesthood Keys and Authority. I've personally tasted the good fruits of the restoration and of the keys Pres. Nelson holds. No lawyering type conversation can change that.

Post Reply