LDS Freedom Forum

Sounds like you have a Bible, a Bible, and need no more Bible.

Videre faciem Dei wrote: Okay, here is a short list:

1. The prophet can never lead us astray. This cannot be substantiated in the scriptures.

Your argument is that the scriptures are the ultimate authority. They are the writings of prophets. If I have this right then you are saying ancient prophets can't lead us astray but modern ones can. How is this possible?

2. The word of wisdom prohibits all alcohol. This is an edict from President Grant, but not in accordance with scripture.

Sort of like how the 10 commandments were an edict from Moses. Or the Endowment was an edict from Joseph Smith.

3. Tithing is 10% of income. This comes from a First Presidency statement, but is not backed up in scripture.

The people that wrote the scripture were the First Presidency of their day. Why would ancient First Presidencies be able to speak with authority but no current or more recent First Presidencies?

4. The President of the Church is a prophet. Not necessarily. He is only called to become one. See Section 107 of the D&C.

D&C 107 says that the President of the church is bestowed with all prophetic gifts. The President is a Prophet. Further, he is sustained as such and accepts the sustaining so if he is not this is all a fraud.

5. It is okay to change the temple ordinances of the church without explanation. That is warned about in the New Testament and B of M.

Where.

These are just a few things. I love President Monson, his counselors, and the Twelve. I think all of them are great guys. But if I believe the church to be in error in these areas, am I an apostate for this for saying so?

Possibly.

If I try to convince my fellow men to leave the church over it, sure. But saying that all is not well in Zion is not apostate behavior.

I don't think anyone said that. I think the issue is murmuring. Which is universally condemned in the Bible, and other scripture.

I get tired of that word being thrown around constantly. (Sorry, rant is now over).

PS - I'm not looking for a rebuttal to the list of issues. I really want to stay on the topic of being able to voice disagreement without being labeled.

Well, lots of people that drink alcohol don't want to be called alcoholics. If you were to tell your Stake President in a recommend interview that Thomas Monson may not be a Prophet do you think you would get one?

Please find scriptures, or any revelation based teaching where we are allowed to voice disagreements. I can find bunches where you aren't.

Videre faciem Dei wrote: Okay, here is a short list:

1. The prophet can never lead us astray. This cannot be substantiated in the scriptures.
2. The word of wisdom prohibits all alcohol. This is an edict from President Grant, but not in accordance with scripture.
3. Tithing is 10% of income. This comes from a First Presidency statement, but is not backed up in scripture.
4. The President of the Church is a prophet. Not necessarily. He is only called to become one. See Section 107 of the D&C.
5. It is okay to change the temple ordinances of the church without explanation. That is warned about in the New Testament and B of M.

To number one: 1 Proverbs 28:10 Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession.

two; 1 Cor. 6:10 ...Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(Gal. 5:21)....Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

three: Alma 13:15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. This would indicate all we own and possess and receive.

four D&C 132:59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.

five don't know about that one.

The scriptures and the testimony of living prophets are like two pointers on the Liahona.

Seek the Truth wrote: Please find scriptures, or any revelation based teaching where we are allowed to voice disagreements. I can find bunches where you aren't

.

D&C 107:
82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

I guess it is not the dictatorship that some believe it to be.

D&C 28: 13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

What if I don't consent to building the mall? Do I not have the right to voice my opinion? This scripture says I have the right. All things in the church are to be done by common consent, not by dictatorship.

Thomas, and anyone can correct me if I am in error, having done my best over time to study the issue of Common Consent, my knowledge of the subject is that it is mostly about sustaining people to callings (with some exceptions) but it doesn't interfere with D&C 107 stating the Twelve are the final arbiters of all spiritual controversies (vs 79-80) and are to regulate all the affairs of the Church (vs 33), in a manner described in verse 27 and described here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtwpPT1QQQE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is my understanding, anyone who may know more please chime in.

Daryl wrote:We are all fallen and in a state of apostasy. To believe otherwise is prideful and pious. It's when we recognize the fallen state that room is made for progression. Without that recognition, we are doomed to believe all is well to be doomed to a less than exalted sphere.

I agree Daryl! :ymapplause:

Seek the Truth wrote:Thomas, and anyone can correct me if I am in error, having done my best over time to study the issue of Common Consent, my knowledge of the subject is that it is mostly about sustaining people to callings (with some exceptions) but it doesn't interfere with D&C 107 stating the Twelve are the final arbiters of all spiritual controversies (vs 79-80) and are to regulate all the affairs of the Church (vs 33), in a manner described in verse 27 and described here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtwpPT1QQQE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is my understanding, anyone who may know more please chime in.

I believe the sustaining is done because of the impractical nataure of having the members involved in all decisions. That doesn't mean our say has been taken away. If we diagree with their decisions, we have the right to not sustain them. We also have the right to remove them from office, for trangressions.

D&C says it is a common council of the church,that will be assisted by the the twelve, that decides upon disipline pertaining to the president of The High Preisthood. That is a far cry from the infailable, unquestionable position some put the prophet in.

Videre faciem Dei wrote: PS - I'm not looking for a rebuttal to the list of issues. I really want to stay on the topic of being able to voice disagreement without being labeled.

Okay, I know I'm quoting myself, but I was really trying to avoid this becoming a discussion about various points of doctrine.

Seek the Truth wrote: Please find scriptures, or any revelation based teaching where we are allowed to voice disagreements. I can find bunches where you aren't..

Okay, now you finally got to the point.

I'm just going to say this, and then I'm bowing out of this discussion. I do not need "permission" to disagree with anyone. I am an agent unto myself, and have been given agency by God to do whatever I darn well please. I am fully aware that I will be judged for the things I say, do, and think. God is not a dictator and does not "permit" us certain privileges. He loves us and allows us to think for ourselves. I have come to my own understanding of what is right and wrong by sincere fasting, prayer, study, and pondering, and by the blessing of the gift of the Holy Ghost. I yield to the presiding authorities of the church the right to conduct the affairs of the church as they see fit. They are called to this, not me. But if they do something I think is wrong, I have every right to think what I want about it, and to say what I want, provided it is authorized by the Holy Ghost. I do not need a man to tell me what I can and can't think or say.

You throw around the use of the word apostasy to describe me and others who disagree with church authorities. The dictionary defines apostasy as an abandonment of one's faith. I have not abandoned my faith. My faith is in Jesus Christ, not a telestial institution, and certainly not in an infallible pope, er prophet, er church president. If anything, the church is in apostasy because it has failed to become Zion. I urge you to be careful who you call "apostate". Feel free to label me if you want, but I know who I am, I know where I'm going, and I KNOW that the Lord approves of what I believe. Can you say the same?

(Climbing down from soapbox)

I knew I would regret jumping into this. This battle has been fought in this forum before, and it is always a losing battle. Nighty-night everyone.

Actually VfD, what you have said is what needs/ought to be said. Thank you.

Videre faciem Dei wrote:

Videre faciem Dei wrote: PS - I'm not looking for a rebuttal to the list of issues. I really want to stay on the topic of being able to voice disagreement without being labeled.

Okay, I know I'm quoting myself, but I was really trying to avoid this becoming a discussion about various points of doctrine.

Seek the Truth wrote: Please find scriptures, or any revelation based teaching where we are allowed to voice disagreements. I can find bunches where you aren't..

Okay, now you finally got to the point.

I'm just going to say this, and then I'm bowing out of this discussion. I do not need "permission" to disagree with anyone. I am an agent unto myself, and have been given agency by God to do whatever I darn well please. I am fully aware that I will be judged for the things I say, do, and think. God is not a dictator and does not "permit" us certain privileges. He loves us and allows us to think for ourselves. I have come to my own understanding of what is right and wrong by sincere fasting, prayer, study, and pondering, and by the blessing of the gift of the Holy Ghost. I yield to the presiding authorities of the church the right to conduct the affairs of the church as they see fit. They are called to this, not me. But if they do something I think is wrong, I have every right to think what I want about it, and to say what I want, provided it is authorized by the Holy Ghost. I do not need a man to tell me what I can and can't think or say.

You throw around the use of the word apostasy to describe me and others who disagree with church authorities. The dictionary defines apostasy as an abandonment of one's faith. I have not abandoned my faith. My faith is in Jesus Christ, not a telestial institution, and certainly not in an infallible pope, er prophet, er church president. If anything, the church is in apostasy because it has failed to become Zion. I urge you to be careful who you call "apostate". Feel free to label me if you want, but I know who I am, I know where I'm going, and I KNOW that the Lord approves of what I believe. Can you say the same?

(Climbing down from soapbox)

I knew I would regret jumping into this. This battle has been fought in this forum before, and it is always a losing battle. Nighty-night everyone.

And you failed to acknowledge the answers to your questions/statements that I researched. Things you said do not exist in scripture. Oh, well...at least some here can look and see if I answered them correctly.

Please find a scripture that allows anyone on the internet to disagree with me.

Seek the Truth wrote:

freedomfighter wrote: Well noted. Thanks. Some people wouldn't know what a strawman argument was even if it bit them in the butt.

I sure agree with you on that. I posted the wikipedia definition and it seems so straightforward.

Oh, well. We've been told that we'll be tested in all things...and that there is opposition in all things...but it is sad when the opposition and testing comes from our own ranks.

I agree. The amount of murmuring against prophets and apostles these days astonishes me, personally. Ironically, they demand the right to criticize prophets and apostles but then want to be free from criticism. It's really baffling.

I don't care to be criticized at all. I don't criticize them in anyway by questioning whether or not they have actually seen God or Christ. Saying one is a "special witness" doesn't necessarily mean one has had such a visitation.

I believe they hold all of the keys to the kingdom but do not believe they are "like unto Moses". I also believe that we are not electing prophets how the Lord would want us.

The problem starts so many years ago and even more for some when we were all youth singing "follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way... follow the prophet, don't go astray!". We are counseled to "receive" prophets and not follow them but the teachings within the Church state to follow the prophet and you'll be exalted. This is false doctrine. Follow no man. Naturally, if you weren't a fool, you would receive any prophet or prophetess.

Bro Nibley says it much better than I can. Joseph constantly warned of becoming an accuser of the Brethren. Those who feel justified in doing so best search their own hearts to see if they are pure.


http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=book ... =49&id=316" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It almost seemed as if Brian was trying to draw people out. This is such a volitile topic. Amazing how fast the responses piled up.

Just humble yourself, and follow the spirit. God will manifest the truth of all things.

BrentL wrote:I am totaly in personal apostasy. until I hear the words "my son..... " I will consider that a simple fact. Until I am properly clothed, I shall hold that I am NOT redeemed from the FALL. until I commune with the church of the firstborn, I will consider my church in apostasy.

if recognizing fault within men while still sustaining them is apostasy, then yep, I am rolling down that hill. clear anything up?

+1000 :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

I once lived in a ward where the Bishop did not support scouting. His view was, scouting was for those boys who could not cut it in school sports.

He also did not allow the ward organizations to spend what had been budgeted for them. All year long he would consistently deny requests for funds, even though they were entirely within the budgeted amount. Then, at the end of the year, he announced that the ward had a surplus of funds (surprise!) and so he purchased a whole bunch of framed paintings to put up and down all the halls of the building.

Was I critical of this bishop? Yes. Did I support his decisions? Yes - I was in no position to tell him how to conduct his stewardship. It was not a matter of my being right. It was a matter of my choosing righteousness.

rdw

BrentL wrote:I am totaly in personal apostasy. until I hear the words "my son..... " I will consider that a simple fact. Until I am properly clothed, I shall hold that I am NOT redeemed from the FALL. until I commune with the church of the firstborn, I will consider my church in apostasy.

if recognizing fault within men while still sustaining them is apostasy, then yep, I am rolling down that hill. clear anything up?

Ain't that the truth. I strive to do, I strive to obey, but I am not heeding all that has been given. If I am not living it, how can I say I am not in apostasy? Just piling on.

If there is some mortal who has a stewardship over me, and they have something to say, I am going to listen. This includes first my father on earth, then my church leaders. If it is delivered properly, the spirit will confirm it, and I will be a better person for heeding. I can't take the chance of spurning a spiritual learning opporunity by rejecting the earthly messenger. If I had spurned Elder Eyring's or Elder Bednar's talks from last conference, I would have missed out.
Dang, I just made this too long.
Of course when I was in my priesthood meeting this week and we talked about how vital is was to be completely submerged during baptism, and looked past the gift of the Holy Ghost, I felt sort of ripped off. I asked if having hands laid on you during confirmation constitues the baptism of the spirit spoken of by Christ is John 3, I got an "I don't know what you just said" look, followed up by some meek attempts to reference Lorenzo Snows experience of receiving it by some quorum presidency members.
Then my wife told me in Relief Society they had an awesome discussion about the purpose of ordinances from the same material. I felt even more ripped off.

rdwhitaker wrote:I once lived in a ward where the Bishop did not support scouting. His view was, scouting was for those boys who could not cut it in school sports.

He also did not allow the ward organizations to spend what had been budgeted for them. All year long he would consistently deny requests for funds, even though they were entirely within the budgeted amount. Then, at the end of the year, he announced that the ward had a surplus of funds (surprise!) and so he purchased a whole bunch of framed paintings to put up and down all the halls of the building.

Was I critical of this bishop? Yes. Did I support his decisions? Yes - I was in no position to tell him how to conduct his stewardship. It was not a matter of my being right. It was a matter of my choosing righteousness.

rdw

And that is when you pray about it and then talk to the Stake President...and if he doesn't care and you still have an issue, you repeat the process and go to the Area Authority 70, or to the Area President (FT 70)....that Bishop would get a serious talking to, if not released and a Church court as well.

I have counseled several past girl friends/single moms (NOT with my children - you guys taunted me with that before :p ) whose bishops or stake presidents were giving them grief. They followed these steps and got things corrected - though the lower leaders were very @#!*% at them.

Thomas wrote:

D&C 28: 13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

What if I don't consent to building the mall? Do I not have the right to voice my opinion? This scripture says I have the right. All things in the church are to be done by common consent, not by dictatorship.

We are not a dictatorship, nor a representative republic or democracy. The church is a theocracy - meaning God is in charge and transmits His will via His prophets and apostles.

I posted this on the latest City Creek Mall thread, but I think it also applies here:

While we are not Catholics, we are not Protestants either, either in our own individual interpretations of doctrine being as good as everyone else's (Authority unimportant), or with every single thing needing to be brought up and voted upon in General Assembly before we can act on it. The Lord restored Prophets and Apostles for a reason.

Sustaining of officers aside, Common Consent was never meant to make the Church a political democracy. Nor is there really doctrinal provision for loyal opposition. If you are considering it as checks and balances, then you better make sure the offense (e.g.City Creek mall) rises to the level of an impeachable crime/high crimes (to use a Constitutional parallel). And you better follow through - and face the consequences whatever they will ultimately be.

I wonder what happened to Paul Drockton's attempt to get the FBI to charge the First Pres. with racketeering, fraud, and embezzling? I know the internet petition to force Church financial disclosure seems to have failed.

Videre faciem Dei wrote:

Videre faciem Dei wrote: PS - I'm not looking for a rebuttal to the list of issues. I really want to stay on the topic of being able to voice disagreement without being labeled.

Okay, I know I'm quoting myself, but I was really trying to avoid this becoming a discussion about various points of doctrine.

Seek the Truth wrote: Please find scriptures, or any revelation based teaching where we are allowed to voice disagreements. I can find bunches where you aren't..

Okay, now you finally got to the point.

I'm just going to say this, and then I'm bowing out of this discussion. I do not need "permission" to disagree with anyone. I am an agent unto myself, and have been given agency by God to do whatever I darn well please. I am fully aware that I will be judged for the things I say, do, and think. God is not a dictator and does not "permit" us certain privileges. He loves us and allows us to think for ourselves. I have come to my own understanding of what is right and wrong by sincere fasting, prayer, study, and pondering, and by the blessing of the gift of the Holy Ghost. I yield to the presiding authorities of the church the right to conduct the affairs of the church as they see fit. They are called to this, not me. But if they do something I think is wrong, I have every right to think what I want about it, and to say what I want, provided it is authorized by the Holy Ghost. I do not need a man to tell me what I can and can't think or say.

You throw around the use of the word apostasy to describe me and others who disagree with church authorities. The dictionary defines apostasy as an abandonment of one's faith. I have not abandoned my faith. My faith is in Jesus Christ, not a telestial institution, and certainly not in an infallible pope, er prophet, er church president. If anything, the church is in apostasy because it has failed to become Zion. I urge you to be careful who you call "apostate". Feel free to label me if you want, but I know who I am, I know where I'm going, and I KNOW that the Lord approves of what I believe. Can you say the same?

(Climbing down from soapbox)

I knew I would regret jumping into this. This battle has been fought in this forum before, and it is always a losing battle. Nighty-night everyone.

VfD.

It seems you have bundled together a number of strawman/contradictory arguments. Let me know if I misunderstand.

1) God gives us commandments, then gives us the freedom to obey or disobey. When I say we are commanded it in no way implies that you don't have a choice in the matter. However, the consequences of disobedience are quite clear. When I say we are not permitted to murmur it can be said in other ways, like God has repeatedly said not to murmur, therefore I think I would need permission to murmur if I felt the urge. I certainly did not mean to imply that we have no free agency. We certainly do.

2) The Jesus Christ I have faith in set up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and called prophets and apostles through which he restored the gospel and Priesthood keys, all for the purpose of bringing about the salvation and exaltation of man in the Latter Days. In D&C 1 Jesus proclaimed the Church to be true and living. I am grateful for the Church and it is an honor to serve within it. It has aided Christ in his mission.

3) I find it puzzling how on this website many will claim we are all in a state of apostasy, and yet if some other people discuss potential issues of apostasy it is outrageous, unfair, labeling, etc. Are we apostates or not? Is murmuring against the Lords anointed apostate behavior or not? Why is one way of labeling apostasy acceptable and another way unacceptable?

4) The Church has never taught the President is an infallible pope, and I haven't seen it on this website.

5) As ff pointed out, some of the other things you said seem unsupported.

6) I would not label you an apostate as others have done in this thread (we're all in apostasy), I am simply trying to address certain beliefs and attitudes that have led to that.

Bottom line? Any one of us could potentially find a reason to leave the church, but not attending church services is not apostasy. But do you what? We don't go to church for other people, we don't go because it is a good social gathering. We don't go to church because there was no big sport event that day. We go to church, stay faithful, revere the Lord and seek perfection for ourselves. Each one of us is in a personal relationship, a partnership with Christ. It's Christ and me, or Christ and you...it's not Christ and us. He saves us individually not collectively. One person's apostasy doesn't affect another person's testimony...unless the testimony was weak in the first place. Any one of us could be looking for any excuse to leave the church. But many of us are striving to keep the commandments, to believe Christ...that He can and will save us. Hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, making them steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works. Without this hope, we are lost, however, this hope can be had. We must believe that Christ will do what He says, that He will save us. Why else would He be called "the Savior?"

Ether 12:4
Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.

tmac wrote:Actually VfD, what you have said is what needs/ought to be said. Thank you.

Amen. Thanks for the great post, VfD.