LDS Freedom Forum

EclecticLibertarian wrote:When a vote is called to sustain one's leaders or a decision of one's leaders, is this because the body of the Church has the power to override the decisions of the Brethren? Or is it merely a formal display of acceptance or loyalty and allegiance?

Karen's comment is true. Also, in Joseph Smith's time, and even after the saints went out west, it was a vote to accept the person. They could veto anyone. Nowadays, it is a formality. And the higher one goes in the hierarchy, the more a mere formality it becomes, and the more it becomes a perceived covenant with God to do everything the leader tells you to do as if the leader were God Himself.

I am sure Laman and Lemuel felt their questions of their dreamer father were all justified in their minds. I have a feeling Noah had a number of children who were really concerned that the old man was off his rocker building a boat in the middle of dry land. Murmuring always has been and always will be just that... Murmuring, and the Lord never looks kindly on it. Just sayin'...

Mark wrote:

Truth B Known wrote: Mark, we're not mocking - our concerns are sincere and honest - OK, here's an analogy for you - what if the church announced tomorrow that they had made the decision to get into the theme park business and would be dropping $100 million dollars to invest in, say, a Six Flags for Salt Lake City in order to help 'revitalize' the area, attract even more tourists and to 'preserve the image and beauty' of Salt Lake. You'd be perfectly OK with that without having any doubts in your mind and simply accept that there must be a 'higher purpose' for it?

Let me put it this way Bro. If the united voice of the Brethren decided to build a city on the moon I would look for every opportunity to try and support them in their desires and goals. I have a firm and abiding testimony through the spirit that these Prophets are men of God inspired to do a great work in these latter days. If they feel something should be done to further the work of the Lord prior to his coming that is good enough for me. When their decisions are made as a united body all arguments cease in my mind. I have faith that they are about the Lords business. I fully believe time will bear that out.

Mark, I admire your faithfulness, loyalty and attitude of maintaining the position that you would never question the brethren about anything as that shows you are committed to sustaining them and their endeavors as servants of the Lord, however, are you so caught up with your belief in the infallibility of any of the church leaders that you honestly don't believe they are capable of making wrong decisions, especially when it comes to spending church funds? I get the whole stewardship thing, believe me, but guess what... $2.5 billion was just dropped on a luxury mall that came from interest allegedly earned from investment funds which derived from tithing in the first place (those are sacred funds from the general membership for the building of the kingdom, are they not)?... and back in 1979, the church stopped being accountable to the members for the use of church funds... you don't find any of this troubling in the least bit?

And let's get something else straight right now... I am not treading into apostate waters because of my concern, I am not exhibiting a complete lack of mistrust in the brethren when it comes to using sacred funds and I am not criticizing the leadership of the church... what I am doing is simply asking why... why is the church investing billions into a stinking luxury shopping mall when it has NOTHING to do with the 4-fold mission of the church? And if you think I'm outta line for asking, so be it... I happen to think it's healthy for members to occasionally exhibit the fact that we are not blind sheep who are expected to not question anything our imperfect brethren do or say and the church does have this superiority complex where we are expected to not question anything that comes out of Salt Lake as if God and Christ themselves reside in the church office building... IMHO, this is far more dangerous of an attitude than anything we, as members, might express concern over!!

Truth B Known wrote: Mark, I admire your faithfulness, loyalty and attitude of maintaining the position that you would never question the brethren about anything as that shows you are committed to sustaining them and their endeavors as servants of the Lord, however, are you so caught up with your belief in the infallibility of any of the church leaders that you honestly don't believe they are capable of making wrong decisions, especially when it comes to spending church funds? I get the whole stewardship thing, believe me, but guess what... $2.5 billion was just dropped on a luxury mall that came from interest allegedly earned from investment funds which derived from tithing in the first place (those are sacred funds from the general membership for the building of the kingdom, are they not)?... and back in 1979, the church stopped being accountable to the members for the use of church funds... you don't find any of this troubling in the least bit? And let's get something else straight right now... I am not treading into apostate waters because of my concern, I am not exhibiting a complete lack of mistrust in the brethren when it comes to using sacred funds and I am not criticizing the leadership of the church... what I am doing is simply asking why... why is the church investing billions into a stinking luxury shopping mall when it has NOTHING to do with the 4-fold mission of the church? And if you think I'm outta line for asking, so be it... I happen to think it's healthy for members to occasionally exhibit the fact that we are not blind sheep who are expected to not question anything our imperfect brethren do or say!

Well said! :ymapplause:

Well then, Truth Be Known, why don't you go talk to the Brethren, then since they are the only ones who can truly answer your questions. You might think you're just asking a simple question, but actually it comes off like criticizing our Church leaders. Therefore, they are the ones who need to hear your questions. Continually questioning their judgment on a number of issues doesn't seem so innocent and does seem more like murmuring.

Rand wrote:I am sure Laman and Lemuel felt their questions of their dreamer father were all justified in their minds. I have a feeling Noah had a number of children who were really concerned that the old man was off his rocker building a boat in the middle of dry land. Murmuring always has been and always will be just that... Murmuring, and the Lord never looks kindly on it. Just sayin'...

But Lehi wasn't the equivalent of a general authority in his day. He was simply a man who listened to the many prophets (who may not have been religious leaders, either) who warned that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed (1 Nephi 1:4-5). Laban was the one in a leadership position (he had the record of the Ephraimites, he had been out with the elders at night, he was well-off, apparently). Laman and Lemuel, no doubt, thought Lehi was insane because the people in Jerusalem were a righteous people. They kept the statutes and judgments of God, and they kept all his commandments (1 Nephi 17:22)

Had Lehi been the equivalent of a general authority, they would not have doubted his right to the revelations that caused him to take his family and leave Jerusalem.

As for Noah, we don't have enough of the record preserved to know if he held any hierarchical authority in a church, or if he was just a common person "judging" the people.

Lehi was most certainly a prophet and had been given his stewardship by the Lord.

A Random Phrase wrote:

Rand wrote:I am sure Laman and Lemuel felt their questions of their dreamer father were all justified in their minds. I have a feeling Noah had a number of children who were really concerned that the old man was off his rocker building a boat in the middle of dry land. Murmuring always has been and always will be just that... Murmuring, and the Lord never looks kindly on it. Just sayin'...

But Lehi wasn't the equivalent of a general authority in his day. He was simply a man who listened to the many prophets (who may not have been religious leaders, either) who warned that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed (1 Nephi 1:4-5). Laban was the one in a leadership position (he had the record of the Ephraimites, he had been out with the elders at night, he was well-off, apparently). Laman and Lemuel, no doubt, thought Lehi was insane because the people in Jerusalem were a righteous people. They kept the statutes and judgments of God, and they kept all his commandments (1 Nephi 17:22)

Had Lehi been the equivalent of a general authority, they would not have doubted his right to the revelations that caused him to take his family and leave Jerusalem.

As for Noah, we don't have enough of the record preserved to know if he held any hierarchical authority in a church, or if he was just a common person "judging" the people.

Correct it is also interesting to note that abinadi was also no "prophet", whereas King noah was at the head of the high priests over the then established church.

kathyn wrote:Lehi was most certainly a prophet and had been given his stewardship by the Lord.

Yes, Lehi was a prophet authorized by the Lord, but there is no evidence that he was authorized by any man in the established hierarchy. He wasn't even eligible to be a priest, let alone a high priest because he was of the tribe of Manasseh, not Levi (and Ishmael was of the tribe of Ephraim). I said Laban had the record of the Ephraimites, it was more like the record of Joseph.

Walden wrote:Correct it is also interesting to note that abinadi was also no "prophet", whereas King noah was at the head of the high priests over the then established church.

Exactly. And Alma was an apostate. He'd been run out of town for his apostasy. John the Baptist came out of the boonies. Jesus was not only not part of the hierarchy, He was often at odds with them.

Scanning through the posts in this and other threads, many fall under the "Church President is Infallible" line. The assumption is that Prophet, Seer and Revelator applies to business concerns. I propose, however, that if you understand both doctrine and history, you'll see this is a great error.

As I quoted in another thread, while the mantle of a sustained church president is continual, the accompanying spiritual gifts are not. I will quote again from Joseph Smith:

TPJS p.278: wrote: This morning I read German and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet"; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.

This simple sentence from the prophet who led the restoration states that there are modalities, whereupon a man acting as a prophet can call upon higher powers to promote the cause of heaven, but that this was not a perpetual condition.

Additionally, the notion that a president of the church is somehow more wise and capable in business completely flies in the face of historical facts. For example, Joseph Smith founded a bank in Kirtland called the Kirtland Safety Society. The bank lasted barely a month before it collapsed and left him in deep debt and in disrepute. The church also hovered on the brink of insolvency in the late 1800s and the 1950's. The notion that the gift of prophecy, seership and revelation applies to business is utterly false and misplaced. History makes that abundantly clear.

Interestingly, Joseph was misled by a rumor that there was money to be had to relieve his situation, and made a trip to Massachusetts where he realized he had been deceived. Nevertheless, he delivered an electrifying sermon where the powers of heaven were evident, demonstrating that a prophet is a prophet when he is acting as such. D&C 111 refers to these events, and the Lord mentions Joseph's follies that led to his deception, and if you read carefully it's clear that the Lord is more concerned about spiritual riches, not monetary riches. He promises that resources will be available to pay the debts, but to focus on avoiding sin. The Lord wants us to care more about the work than the money. If the church's business focuses on efforts not related to its mission, as the body of Christ we are entitled to ask questions on why this is being done.

I think what we need to be careful of is that we can call the church into account for the way it manages its resources - resources anually replenished by the $5-6 billion in tithing and offerings - without questioning the ecclesiastical side of things. I find it disturbing that members are conflating business practices with spiritual teachings. Many seem to equate concerns expressed about church business with questioning/criticism of an ecclesiastic calling. This is not the case. I find it disappointing that mammon has been elevated to the level of spiritual doctrine; to question business practice is to question the calling of a church president. I do not see it that way, and I can find no doctrine to support such an assertion.

kathyn wrote:Well then, Truth Be Known, why don't you go talk to the Brethren, then since they are the only ones who can truly answer your questions. You might think you're just asking a simple question, but actually it comes off like criticizing our Church leaders. Therefore, they are the ones who need to hear your questions. Continually questioning their judgment on a number of issues doesn't seem so innocent and does seem more like murmuring.

kathyn, there are only 3 issues I've ever questioned the brethren on - that does not make me a 'murmerer'. To be honest, I'm really puzzled at how many people are getting on the cases of people like me, Thinker, gruden, Walden, etc. just because we're perplexed over the use of billions for a luxury mall when an exorbitant amount of money like that could have gone for the needy and less fortunate and other higher purposes - the way some are treating us, you'd think we're all for the mall while you guys are defending appropriate uses for sacred funds. #-o

gruden2.0 wrote:Scanning through the posts in this and other threads, many fall under the "Church President is Infallible" line. The assumption is that Prophet, Seer and Revelator applies to business concerns. I propose, however, that if you understand both doctrine and history, you'll see this is a great error.

As I quoted in another thread, while the mantle of a sustained church president is continual, the accompanying spiritual gifts are not. I will quote again from Joseph Smith:

TPJS p.278: wrote: This morning I read German and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet"; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.

This simple sentence from the prophet who led the restoration states that there are modalities, whereupon a man acting as a prophet can call upon higher powers to promote the cause of heaven, but that this was not a perpetual condition.

Additionally, the notion that a president of the church is somehow more wise and capable in business completely flies in the face of historical facts. For example, Joseph Smith founded a bank in Kirtland called the Kirtland Safety Society. The bank lasted barely a month before it collapsed and left him in deep debt and in disrepute. The church also hovered on the brink of insolvency in the late 1800s and the 1950's. The notion that the gift of prophecy, seership and revelation applies to business is utterly false and misplaced. History makes that abundantly clear.

Interestingly, Joseph was misled by a rumor that there was money to be had to relieve his situation, and made a trip to Massachusetts where he realized he had been deceived. Nevertheless, he delivered an electrifying sermon where the powers of heaven were evident, demonstrating that a prophet is a prophet when he is acting as such. D&C 111 refers to these events, and the Lord mentions Joseph's follies that led to his deception, and if you read carefully it's clear that the Lord is more concerned about spiritual riches, not monetary riches. He promises that resources will be available to pay the debts, but to focus on avoiding sin. The Lord wants us to care more about the work than the money. If the church's business focuses on efforts not related to its mission, as the body of Christ we are entitled to ask questions on why this is being done.

I think what we need to be careful of is that we can call the church into account for the way it manages its resources - resources anually replenished by the $5-6 billion in tithing and offerings - without questioning the ecclesiastical side of things. I find it disturbing that members are conflating business practices with spiritual teachings. Many seem to equate concerns expressed about church business with questioning/criticism of an ecclesiastic calling. This is not the case. I find it disappointing that mammon has been elevated to the level of spiritual doctrine; to question business practice is to question the calling of a church president. I do not see it that way, and I can find no doctrine to support such an assertion.

Amen!

gruden2.0 wrote:Scanning through the posts in this and other threads, many fall under the "Church President is Infallible" line. The assumption is that Prophet, Seer and Revelator applies to business concerns. I propose, however, that if you understand both doctrine and history, you'll see this is a great error.

As I quoted in another thread, while the mantle of a sustained church president is continual, the accompanying spiritual gifts are not. I will quote again from Joseph Smith:

TPJS p.278: wrote: This morning I read German and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet"; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.

This simple sentence ...

I think that beautifully articulated what many of us have been trying to say.

kathyn wrote:Truth Be Known, I'm seriously worried about you.

And I am worried for anyone putting other gods before God.

You're continually questioning the Brethren about what they are doing with their stewardships and I find that to be very troubling.

And I find it troubling when someone follows a leader's command, no matter what.
Would you be like one of the Mormons who followed Brigham Young's command to kill men, women & children of the Ute tribe?
http://www.blackhawkproductions.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It not only troubles me, but it scares me how mean people have treated me & others for questioning unChristlike actions taken by leaders claiming to be leading "The Church of Jesus Christ."
How far would their anger go? It really scares me, & that is why I feel it is absolutely essential that we, who see this for what it is, stand up for what is right, what is in compliance with Jesus' greatest teachings - the 2 greatest commandments Loving God & loving others as ourselves - "on these 2 commandments hang all the laws & the prophets" As we love others, we love God, as we don't love others, we don't love God. There are currently almost 1,000,000,000 men, women & children who are starving - tens of thousands DIE EVERY DAY... & here we have a fancy, expensive shopping mall, which was an unwise not just from a Christian teachings - but also from a business perspective.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea ... 202002.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you honestly think it's your job to steady the ark?

Is it our job for stand up for what Jesus taught? YES!

Why don't you let the Lord take on this burden.

That's like saying, why don't I let the Lord go to work for me, & raise my children & live my life.
God gave me a life to LIVE it!
Not to give him to live it for me. It's the adversary's teaching to follow by demand without question.

Thinker, WHATEVER!

I have fasted & prayed & cried for the members of the church to wake up & realize what is most needed... LOVE.

By "love" I don't just mean the kissy, feel good feeling.
I mean, God, who is love... who sees what is best, who knows that a person dying is worth helping, as the parable of the good Samaritan.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea ... 202002.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=526BTs_DRoE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In conference the example was also given where Brigham Young spoke at length in support of the saints going out to meet an approaching army. This speech was given in the morning. That afternoon he spoke again and said "This morning you heard what brother Brigham had to say, now you will hear what the Lord has to say on the matter." and then proceeded to give a speech in direct opposition to what he had said just a few hours earlier.

And I have never said we should not seek confirmation of everything the prophet says. I feel that is exactly what we should do. However, I do feel that speaking out in opposition, based on promptings that we have received is speaking outside our stewardship and I feel is a dangerous path to be on. Teachings of various modern day prophets confirm this.

Thinker, in regards to your last post you say you find it troubling when someone follows a leaders command, no matter what.

What have you been commanded that you have doubts about? The issue of the mall is not related to a command or direction given by the church leaders. Your concern that you have stated has nothing to do with this issue that I can see.

Counsel that we have been given is that someone who makes a habit of speaking in contradiction to the church leadership is on the road to apostacy....do you disagree with this counsel? Your actions say you do.

You seem to believe that the brethren are answerable to the membership for every decision they make. You are wrong. They are answerable to the Lord and the Lord only for the fulfilling of their responsibilities and the management of their stewardship. I do not believe you understand stewardship. The Lord's house is a house of order. There are many members who did not agree with the church position on Prop 8. There are probably no decisions made by the church leaders that are universally embraced. Do the leaders need to poll the membership befor taking any action? While I agree with you, the leadership are not infallible, does that mean that they need to obtain majority approval before they do anything? You certainly seem to feel entitled to challenge the prophet, apostles, and other general authorities on various matters...how does that attitude fit in with a house of order and the principle of stewardship?

"3 Nephi 12: 8:

'And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God.'

This is a remarkable promise. Would you like to see God? Then first purify your heart.

Notice this is not just ritual purity, which had been the focus of the Law of Moses. Christ is replacing earlier ritual based purity with internal purity.

He speaks about the heart, rather than the hands and feet. Christ is speaking about beholding God, unlike the retreat Israel took from the offered opportunity at Sinai. (See D&C 84: 22-25.) He is returning to the time of Moses, when a higher way might have been chosen.

Purity of the heart is a borrowed benefit from the Savior. Man cannot become clean before God without the necessary offering of a sacrifice. The Law of Moses taught this, but Christ would actually bring it to pass. (See, e.g., Alma 34: 36.)

Christ's atonement cleanses us. (Alma 13: 11; Ether 13: 10.)

When we repent we turn to Christ and listen to and follow Him. Until then, we are not even facing the right direction in life.

Some reminders of how the heart may be purified:

-Let virtue constantly prevail in your thoughts. (D&C 121: 45.)
-Pray to the Father with a devoted heart. (Moroni 7: 48.)
-Repent and call upon God with a contrite spirit, asking the atonement to be applied to your sins. (Mosiah 4: 2.)
-Fast and pray often, that you may become humble. (Helaman 3: 35.)
-Follow what light you have to receive more light, until you have the "perfect day" in which you are a vessel of light. (D&C 50: 24; D&C 93: 28.)

It is also interesting that what must be 'pure' is the 'heart.' There are so many other things one might measure. But what the Lord looks upon to determine purity is the 'heart.'

I've said that there is almost nothing about us that can become perfect in this life. The only thing that can approach perfection, however, is our intent. We can mean to follow God at all times. Even if the dilemmas of life make it impossible to actually do so, we can still intend to follow Him. We may not even know if what we are doing pleases Him, or how to resolve conflicting interests or commandments. We may even be making a mistake, but if our intent is right, our hearts may be pure.

This is also one of the reasons we cannot judge another. They may be weak, foolish and error prone, but if they intend to be doing the right then God alone can measure their heart and decide whether they are approved. It would take a God to know if the person's life, training, understanding and intent are pure before Him. I suspect there are those we look upon as deluded and even evil but the Lord views them with compassion and understanding. He may find their hearts to be perfect even before the heart of the proud who claim they have and follow the truth. Though a person may misunderstand a great deal, still if they have love for their fellow man, relieve suffering where they can, give patience to the foolish and water to the thirsty, they may be perfect before God. (Luke 18: 9-14.)"


Since no one is persuading anyone here, and this is more close to contention than a thoughtful discussion, I suggest we accept that we are judged by whether we are pure in heart and therefore that we seek to purify our hearts. At the end of the day it may not matter whether we zealously sustain our leaders or if one sincerely believes it appropriate to speak out against them with love if our hearts are pure. The only thing that can be said is to seek the Holy Ghost and do whatever it is that you feel you should do, and allow others the same privilege. (11 AoF)

"Would you like to see God? Then first purify your heart."

Original_Intent wrote:What have you been commanded that you have doubts about? The issue of the mall is not related to a command or direction given by the church leaders.

I agree with this. Because there was no commandment "from the Lord" then I feel more free to wonder about it. And not agreeing with the decision will not affect my salvation, unless it causes me to reject an actual commandment or piece of counsel coming from the Lord through the brethren.

Mark wrote: Let me put it this way Bro. If the united voice of the Brethren decided to build a city on the moon I would look for every opportunity to try and support them in their desires and goals...

When this kind of thinking comes from radical Muslims, we condemn it as crazy-talk.

Juliette wrote:Thinker, WHATEVER!

Thats great. But you have failed to address any of the concerns of thinker, nor reject through the scriptures his post. Are you one of those who are "enviest for [the prophets] sake"? (numbers 11:27-29). Thinker quotes scripture. You just say "whatever". Not trying to be offensive, just trying to show how useless your post was at refuting him.

Thinker wrote:I have fasted & prayed & cried for the members of the church to wake up & realize what is most needed... LOVE.

By "love" I don't just mean the kissy, feel good feeling.
I mean, God, who is love... who sees what is best, who knows that a person dying is worth helping, as the parable of the good Samaritan.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea ... 202002.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=526BTs_DRoE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like this.

If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is bacceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity.
And charity suffereth long, and is bkind, and cenvieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. (Moroni 7:44-45)

Raindrop wrote:

Mark wrote: Let me put it this way Bro. If the united voice of the Brethren decided to build a city on the moon I would look for every opportunity to try and support them in their desires and goals...

When this kind of thinking comes from radical Muslims, we condemn it as crazy-talk.

Good grief raindrop I am illustrating a point here. I trust these Brethren to do what is right and true in the eyes of the Lord. They have shown their diligence and faith over many years of service to the Lord and his church. They are good and honorable men of God who seek only to do the Lords will in their lives.

Did you listen to Pres. Monson in his addresses at conference. How about Pres. Eyring? Pres. Uchtdorf? They seek only to serve the Lord and fulfill their duties as the Lords prophets.

Do you or any of the rest here who have continually brought the Brethrens integrity into question have such little faith in them and their desires to do what is right in their callings that you are willing to throw them under a bus the first chance you disagree with a decision that they have made?

Time after time scriptures have been quoted here by some comparing the Prophets of the Lord today to a fulfillment of the warnings given by many Prophets in times past that in the latter days wicked and perverse men would try to thwart the work of the Lord and build up the church of the devil. All because of a mall complex built around temple square! 8-|

To me that shows such little respect and faith in our dear Prophets that it is pathetic and disgraceful. When the trials of the Saints kick up a gear I will bet my food storage that those who display such little faith and confidence in the Brethrens integrity and revelatory powers will be among the first to head for the exits. Just wait and see..

Original_Intent wrote:In conference the example was also given where Brigham Young spoke at length in support of the saints going out to meet an approaching army. This speech was given in the morning. That afternoon he spoke again and said "This morning you heard what brother Brigham had to say, now you will hear what the Lord has to say on the matter." and then proceeded to give a speech in direct opposition to what he had said just a few hours earlier.

And I have never said we should not seek confirmation of everything the prophet says. I feel that is exactly what we should do. However, I do feel that speaking out in opposition, based on promptings that we have received is speaking outside our stewardship and I feel is a dangerous path to be on. Teachings of various modern day prophets confirm this.

Thinker, in regards to your last post you say you find it troubling when someone follows a leaders command, no matter what.

What have you been commanded that you have doubts about? The issue of the mall is not related to a command or direction given by the church leaders. Your concern that you have stated has nothing to do with this issue that I can see.

Counsel that we have been given is that someone who makes a habit of speaking in contradiction to the church leadership is on the road to apostacy....do you disagree with this counsel? Your actions say you do.

You seem to believe that the brethren are answerable to the membership for every decision they make. You are wrong. They are answerable to the Lord and the Lord only for the fulfilling of their responsibilities and the management of their stewardship. I do not believe you understand stewardship. The Lord's house is a house of order. There are many members who did not agree with the church position on Prop 8. There are probably no decisions made by the church leaders that are universally embraced. Do the leaders need to poll the membership befor taking any action? While I agree with you, the leadership are not infallible, does that mean that they need to obtain majority approval before they do anything? You certainly seem to feel entitled to challenge the prophet, apostles, and other general authorities on various matters...how does that attitude fit in with a house of order and the principle of stewardship?

You are a wise man OI.

Mark wrote:

Raindrop wrote:

Mark wrote: Let me put it this way Bro. If the united voice of the Brethren decided to build a city on the moon I would look for every opportunity to try and support them in their desires and goals...

When this kind of thinking comes from radical Muslims, we condemn it as crazy-talk.

Good grief raindrop I am illustrating a point here...

So am I. The Hitlers of the world love this kind of thinking. They wish the whole population thought this way.