LDS Freedom Forum

Nephi294 wrote:..I have read several post on here where others are critical of the LDS leadership. So am I wrong to suggest that some might be on that slippery slope? From here on out things are only going to get tougher and last thing I want to see is people separating themselves from the Church.

BrianM wrote:For those looking for a more clear definition of "speaking evil of the lord's anointed":

"I want to address the misapplication and overreaching misinterpretation of the idea one is "evil speaking" when a person explains something that concerns them. First, we are dealing with the souls of men. We are addressing salvation itself. If there is an error in doctrine or practice, everyone has an obligation to speak up, from the least to the greatest. (D&C 20: 42, 46-47, 50-51, 59, among other places.) Second, the "truth" cannot ever be "evil." Though the truth may cut with a two edged sword, truth is not and cannot be "evil." Therefore, if someone should say something that is untrue or in error, then correct their doctrine, show the error, but do not claim what is good to be evil, nor support what is evil by calling it good. (2 Ne. 15: 20.) Using a broad generalization to stifle a discussion of the truth is a trick of the devil, who is an enemy to your soul. It is not the way of our Lord. He was always open to questions, always willing to answer questions, ever willing to speak the truth even when it caused those with authority over Him to be pained by His words. We must follow Him, and not men, in that example. Even if we would personally prefer to not endure insults but remain silent. So, rather than condemn something as "evil speaking" that you believe to be wrong, explain the error and bring us all into greater understanding. But if something is true, then even if it disturbs your peace of mind, it cannot be evil." (source)

bbrown wrote:At least where I have lived the teachings are disagreement = evil speaking, apostacy etc. Anything taught by the bishop must be obeyed because he is the inspired leader and noone else could even recieve such revelation, and on up. The prevailing attitude at least in my experience, when such a discussion comes up, Is if someone does not agree with the presiding authority be it the bishop, GA, mission pres etc, and they admit it or try to discuss it even if in private, they are evil speaking apostates, because the Bishop or who ever has "keys" and you cannot have revelation that disagrees with his.

I never said I don't believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, that this is his church, or the keys are not here (I did say if unrighteous dominion is used there is NO authority as per D&C 121). I still attend weekly pay tithes hold a recomend etc. The OP stated that many here are evil speaking and fault finding etc and such will lead to "apostacy".

I gave the operating definition at least where I have lived of those terms and what they are used for and, that I don't agree with that idea. You told me I was going against President Young, Which President young? The one who was quoted in the OP or the one quoted by Coachmarc? He made seemingly conflicting statements what were his audiences, what did the entire talks say? Most of the rules policies which are construed as comandments of the church do not come from the Pres or even the twelve, but from comittees and focus groups. Thank you for the dicussion, but I think I'll finish here as i believe we'll just continue to go in circles

Nephi294 wrote:The OP was when we find fault with Church leaders, we begin to separate ourselves from the Church. I never said we shouldn't think for ourselves or that we should follow blindly. I too know some LDS people that do "follow blindly." Let's take for example the recent arrest of a bishop in Ogden, Ut. He frauded many single students in his ward. Could these students have had the mentality "Hey he's the Bishop he would never do anything to hurt me." Maybe if they had prayed about his offers and sought the spirit they wouldn't have been victims.

As for finding fault with Church leaders we should sustain them in their callings and help when asked. If we have some reservations we should be praying for guidance. I guess I just get alittle flustered when members take it upon themselves to counsel or find fault with the Brethren (First Presidency and Quorum of The Twelve Apostles) and seek to counsel them.....just a few examples....."The Church shouldn't have built that mall or The Church shouldn't have gotten involved in prop 8."

I have faith that our Leaders know exactly what they are doing. Do we not all belief that these men are Prophets and Apostles of The Lord Jesus Christ?

Bbrown said:
” I have had to many experiences were bishops teach false doctrine”

MsEva said:
“just because one points out when church leaders teach false doctrine ( I have experienced the same thing and I am willing to speak up about it!”

Nephi294 wrote:I found some info on lds.org which reads:

When we find fault with Church leaders, we begin to separate ourselves from the Church.

"Whenever there is a disposition manifested in any of the members of this Church to question the right of the President of the whole Church to direct in all things, you see manifested evidences of apostasy—of a spirit which, if encouraged, will lead to a separation from the Church and to final destruction; wherever there is a disposition to operate against any legally appointed officer of this Kingdom, no matter in what capacity he is called to act, if persisted in, it will be followed by the same results; they will “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed; they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities” [see 2 Peter 2:10] (DBY, 83).

When a man begins to find fault, inquiring in regard to this, that, and the other, saying, “Does this or that look as though the Lord dictated it?” you may know that that person has more or less of the spirit of apostasy. Every man in this Kingdom, or upon the face of the earth, who is seeking with all his heart to save himself, has as much to do as he can conveniently attend to, without calling in question that which does not belong to him. If he succeeds in saving himself, it has well occupied his time and attention. See to it that you are right yourselves; see that sins and folly do not manifest themselves with the rising sun (DBY, 83).

Many imbibe [conceive] the idea that they are capable of leading out in teaching principles that never have been taught. They are not aware that the moment they give way to this hallucination the Devil has power over them to lead them onto unholy ground; though this is a lesson which they ought to have learned long ago, yet it is one that was learned by but few in the days of Joseph (DBY, 77–78).

[Such a person] will make false prophecies, yet he will do it by the spirit of prophecy; he will feel that he is a prophet and can prophesy, but he does it by another spirit and power than that which was given him of the Lord. He uses the gift as much as you and I use ours (DBY, 82).

One of the first steps to apostasy is to find fault with your Bishop; and when that is done, unless repented of a second step is soon taken, and by and by the person is cut off from the Church, and that is the end of it. Will you allow yourselves to find fault with your Bishop? (DBY, 86).

No man gets power from God to raise disturbance in any Branch of the Church. Such power is obtained from an evil source (DBY, 72).

People do, however, leave this Church, but they leave it because they get into darkness, and the very day they conclude that there should be a democratic vote, or in other words, that we should have two candidates for the presiding Priesthood in the midst of the Latter-day Saints, they conclude to be apostates. There is no such thing as confusion, division, strife, animosity, hatred, malice, or two sides to the question in the house of God; there is but one side to the question there (DBY, 85)."

I have read several post on here where others are critical of the LDS leadership. So am I wrong to suggest that some might be on that slippery slope? From here on out things are only going to get tougher and last thing I want to see is people separating themselves from the Church.

ajax wrote:So a person is on the road to apostasy if they so much as question the church for building a muti-billion dollar mall which caters to the rich?

while at the same time tells its members through its monthly magazine to pay the organization before feeding your family?

So is the attitude we want to instill in church members,
"The thinking has been done for you?"
and
"Move along, there is nothing to see here." ?

If my understanding is correct, they(our leaders) are our servants, not our masters. And as servants, have no right to shush us up if we may have concerns.

freedomfighter wrote: It is our responsibility to determine if what we are being told by any leader, all the way to the Prophet, that which they say is in line with "official church doctrine", namely, the Four Standards Works.

We do not have to follow personal opinions or guesses by them

...these kinds of things can send the wrong message. We cannot follow our leaders blindly.

Furthermore, we cannot go to heaven on their shirt tails. We must have our own testimony and know the scriptures, and be like Christ. End of story.

Seek the Truth wrote:

freedomfighter wrote: It is our responsibility to determine if what we are being told by any leader, all the way to the Prophet, that which they say is in line with "official church doctrine", namely, the Four Standards Works.

Citation please.

We do not have to follow personal opinions or guesses by them

Strawman argument.

...these kinds of things can send the wrong message. We cannot follow our leaders blindly.

Strawman argument.

Furthermore, we cannot go to heaven on their shirt tails. We must have our own testimony and know the scriptures, and be like Christ. End of story.

Strawman argument.

Seek the Truth wrote:Actually ff, you listed 6 statements that nobody made in this thread, in the beginning or anywhere else, and they have nothing to do with the conversation or anything stated in the OP. I can't help but call them strawman arguments. It's what they are. You are arguing against statements nobody made.

Nobody said:

To be a good member, you must be a Republican.

Caffeinenated soft drinks, chocolate bars, etc. are forbidden, along with coffee.

GA’s will never lead you wrong. You will be perfectly safe if you follow what they say.

Temple garments will protect you from physical harm. You will be safe from hazards like fire or chemical burns wherever and whenever you are covered.

Always trust Church leaders advice over such “worldly types” like psychologists, social workers, philosophers, scientists of various disciplines, and other intellectuals.

If you go to church, say your prayers, pay your tithing, accept church callings, the Lord will bless you so you will have no serious problems.

Nobody said a single one of those things.

Seek the Truth wrote:Ok thanks.

They are still strawman arguments regardless of whence they came. No one made any of those statements in this thread, in the OP or anywhere else.

freedomfighter wrote:

Seek the Truth wrote:Ok thanks.

They are still strawman arguments regardless of whence they came. No one made any of those statements in this thread, in the OP or anywhere else.

I never said they did, that's the whole point. I posted it as a "learn something new" basis. Why is that so hard to understand? The strawman you've created is of your own doing because of your lack of understanding why they were posted in the first place. Your reasoning has no bearing on your strawman theory.

But, have it your way. Obviously you didn't understand my explanation. Those listed points were not intended to be a response to the topic, rather, they were things that some people in the church think are true, that are false. Come on. What you have said here means absolutely nothing. Additionally, I don't think you read the links I posted or you wouldn't be so loyal to your own Strawman argument. At this point I leave it to your imagination, because I can't get through to you, neither do I care to anymore. I know what my goal and intent was and that is all that matters. Believe me I could set you straight but I will not pursue that avenue because you're the only one making these erroneous charges. You sound like you'd rather dispute, argue, speculate and make false claims without doing your own study on the matter as to pertaining to what this topic is all about, using the links provided. If you had you would cease calling some of my post content strawman arguments. They were not there for discussion just information. Come on relax.

Can anyone other than STT understand my explanation to STT?

This thread is now about strawmen.

tmac wrote:

This thread is now about strawmen.

Yeah, some people take themselves and their favorite words and phrases a little too seriously -- as if you can just say the word "strawman" and really have it mean anything. But maybe (contrary to actual reality) they think the more often they repeat the phrase the more meaning it will somehow acquire.

Obviously, they don't want to have a substantive, meaningful discussion, but just want to take shortcuts and let meaningless labels do all the thinking.

For those who seem so enamored with that approach, what is your objective?

sixth seal wrote:

Nephi294 wrote:I found some info on lds.org which reads:

When we find fault with Church leaders, we begin to separate ourselves from the Church.

"Whenever there is a disposition manifested in any of the members of this Church to question the right of the President of the whole Church to direct in all things, you see manifested evidences of apostasy—of a spirit which, if encouraged, will lead to a separation from the Church and to final destruction; wherever there is a disposition to operate against any legally appointed officer of this Kingdom, no matter in what capacity he is called to act, if persisted in, it will be followed by the same results; they will “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed; they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities” [see 2 Peter 2:10] (DBY, 83).

When a man begins to find fault, inquiring in regard to this, that, and the other, saying, “Does this or that look as though the Lord dictated it?” you may know that that person has more or less of the spirit of apostasy. Every man in this Kingdom, or upon the face of the earth, who is seeking with all his heart to save himself, has as much to do as he can conveniently attend to, without calling in question that which does not belong to him. If he succeeds in saving himself, it has well occupied his time and attention. See to it that you are right yourselves; see that sins and folly do not manifest themselves with the rising sun (DBY, 83).

Many imbibe [conceive] the idea that they are capable of leading out in teaching principles that never have been taught. They are not aware that the moment they give way to this hallucination the Devil has power over them to lead them onto unholy ground; though this is a lesson which they ought to have learned long ago, yet it is one that was learned by but few in the days of Joseph (DBY, 77–78).

[Such a person] will make false prophecies, yet he will do it by the spirit of prophecy; he will feel that he is a prophet and can prophesy, but he does it by another spirit and power than that which was given him of the Lord. He uses the gift as much as you and I use ours (DBY, 82).

One of the first steps to apostasy is to find fault with your Bishop; and when that is done, unless repented of a second step is soon taken, and by and by the person is cut off from the Church, and that is the end of it. Will you allow yourselves to find fault with your Bishop? (DBY, 86).

No man gets power from God to raise disturbance in any Branch of the Church. Such power is obtained from an evil source (DBY, 72).

People do, however, leave this Church, but they leave it because they get into darkness, and the very day they conclude that there should be a democratic vote, or in other words, that we should have two candidates for the presiding Priesthood in the midst of the Latter-day Saints, they conclude to be apostates. There is no such thing as confusion, division, strife, animosity, hatred, malice, or two sides to the question in the house of God; there is but one side to the question there (DBY, 85)."

I have read several post on here where others are critical of the LDS leadership. So am I wrong to suggest that some might be on that slippery slope? From here on out things are only going to get tougher and last thing I want to see is people separating themselves from the Church.

Amen brother!