LDS Freedom Forum

AGStacker wrote: 91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—

92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.

Seek the Truth wrote:

AGStacker wrote: Simply picking any worthy high priest doesn't mean he is now a prophet.

Ugh. Not this again.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Simon Daum wrote:If we follow any leader blindly, we make ourselves dependend on their revelation and will fall as soon as the winds blow
If we search for personal weaknesses in our leaders we make ourselves dependend on our own weak judgement and get distracted from the really important things, which would be our personal progression

If we instead follow our leaders with an independend mind, personal revelation and an awareness of what is true or false doctrine, we will stand even when the winds blow, and even if an leader should err

Our journey towards salvation is an journey independent from all the people around us, the only person we must depend on is Jesus Christ. And this is the difference. Unnecessary critisism aswell as following without questioning will keep us from coming unto Christ. Being free of crtisism does not mean to not be aware when "things are wrong". And if there are instances where "things are wrong" we only can do something about it if we are aware of it, this to me is not apostacy.

In the end it is my opinion that it really doesn't matter what our leaders do, if we know what we do is in line with Christ. If our leaders would do totally wrong, it would be our duty to do better, and to support them in the best way we can

A Random Phrase wrote:

BrianM wrote:

shadow wrote:Unfortunately the moderators aren't always Christlike so you can't relate the "what" and "how" to Christ then apply it to this forum and think you're being meaningful.

wait, what?! I thought the moderator's were infallible? aren't they? :-ss

)


This thread has really taken off down the strawman road since I last read it. Strawman hobby, anyone? (I think snowmen are much more fun to play with.)

As I'm sure you know, there is a way to ignore posts, FreedomFighter. You might consider it if the non-logical attacks become too irritating.

AGStacker wrote:

Seek the Truth wrote:

AGStacker wrote: Simply picking any worthy high priest doesn't mean he is now a prophet.

Ugh. Not this again.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the "body" or Saints choose the "prophet". I think this is counsel to the Saints saying "choose someone like unto Moses" and not "whomever you choose will be like unto Moses".

freedomfighter wrote: 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.

A Random Phrase wrote:

HeirofNumenor wrote:

5. perhaps we change the hijack of the thread from defining a strawman to defining trolls.

Bilbo's (from Trollshaws), from Moria, or from Mordor? :-B

Not knowing the specifics of any of those, I vote for the ones from Trollshaws.

A Random Phrase wrote:

freedomfighter wrote: 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.

And that is very, very sad. We should be united as a people, even if we disagree in some of the doctrine.

Aragorn wrote:Moria Trolls were were dumb but fearsome, while Mordor trolls wore battle armor, were cunningly viscous, and could move in daylight without turning into stone. All trolls were derived from Ents, in much the same manner that Melkor Morgoth (Lucifer/Satan Sr.) derived Orcs by torturing and twisting captured Elves (the Elder Children of God) ).

freedomfighter wrote:If we all could be taught by the spirit we wouldn't have so many varying understandings of scripture.

We then could see eye to eye with God; we would be in Him, and Him in us...becoming "ONE" with Him.

SmallFarm wrote:One thing I never have figured out: Who/ what is Tom Bombadill?

A Random Phrase wrote:

freedomfighter wrote:If we all could be taught by the spirit we wouldn't have so many varying understandings of scripture.

We then could see eye to eye with God; we would be in Him, and Him in us...becoming "ONE" with Him.

This is so true.

skmo wrote:

SmallFarm wrote:One thing I never have figured out: Who/ what is Tom Bombadill?

In the Tolkien Legendarium, the most commonly held belief is that he is a Maia who has "gone native" like Queen Melian did in taking human form to marry King Thingol. This is the approach I take, and Gandalf (Olorin the Maia, as he was known in Aman) looked forward to a long talk with him after the War of the Ring ended.

freedomfighter wrote: I venture to say, if we were to feast upon the word continually, repent often, pray often, do good to others, possess hope, faith and charity, have the Holy Ghost as our constant companion and sacrifice...we wouldn't need leaders.

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

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.

Daryl wrote:We are all... in a state of apostasy.

freedomfighter wrote:

A Random Phrase wrote:

freedomfighter wrote:If we all could be taught by the spirit we wouldn't have so many varying understandings of scripture.

We then could see eye to eye with God; we would be in Him, and Him in us...becoming "ONE" with Him.

This is so true.

Whew! I wondered if someone was going to call this a strawman argument. It's hard to be an agreeable when disagreeable's don't have a clue as to what agreeable's intents are. Do you agree?

Seek the Truth wrote:

freedomfighter wrote: I venture to say, if we were to feast upon the word continually, repent often, pray often, do good to others, possess hope, faith and charity, have the Holy Ghost as our constant companion and sacrifice...we wouldn't need leaders.

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servant the prophets.

Study the Prophets, and rejoice that God grants unto the world Seers and Prophets. -Joseph Smith, TPJS

The word we feast on was written by the hands of men.

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.

...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.

Nephi294 wrote: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).

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.

And for anyone who takes issue, please give me an example of a situation where I can disagree with or criticize a church authority and not be an apostate.

Videre faciem Dei wrote:I'm sure I will regret jumping into this thread, but here it goes....

At the risk of hijacking this thread about straw men, trolls, and the Tolkien universe, I have a question.

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.

...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.

And

Nephi294 wrote: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).

And

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.

I am asking the original poster, and those who have jumped into this discussion his defense, what is "finding fault"? Based on the responses so far, I get the idea that most of those who agree with the OP would characterize any criticism or disagreement with someone in authority as finding fault. If that is the case, if we must under all circumstances agree with and support the doctrines, positions, programs, etc. proffered by those in authority, how is that different than having an infallible pope? At what point can we say that we disagree with a program or idea put forth by those in authority without being considered in "apostasy"? If I am required to support everything church authorities say and do or be considered an apostate, then I guess I'm an apostate. And for anyone who takes issue, please give me an example of a situation where I can disagree with or criticize a church authority and not be an apostate.

I'm already cringing in anticipation of the responses...

freedomfighter wrote: For the most part, anyone in leadership saying anything that can't be backed by scripture is by definition teaching false doctrine. It is our responsibility to know the difference. And how do we do that? By feasting upon the word, that's how. The Four Standard Works are our "official church doctrine." Not the Ensign, not talks in church, only that which scripture teaches.

Now, if the Prophet were to say in GC, we are now instructed to be ready and prepared for a civil war within our country, it may not be backed by scripture, but we should pray and receive confirmation that it is true. We have that right and responsibility to do so.

But if he were to say, "I fear there will be a civil war in America soon" do we construe that as a warning to get ready or is it merely an articulated feeling of trepidation to be acted on without merit? Some saints would panic and run around like their head was missing. Others would say "ya, right", and then dismiss it.

What say ye all?

Videre faciem Dei wrote: At the risk of hijacking this thread about straw men, trolls, and the Tolkien universe, ...

freedomfighter wrote: For the most part, anyone in leadership saying anything that can't be backed by scripture is by definition teaching false doctrine. It is our responsibility to know the difference. And how do we do that? By feasting upon the word, that's how. The Four Standard Works are our "official church doctrine." Not the Ensign, not talks in church, only that which scripture teaches.

Now, if the Prophet were to say in GC, we are now instructed to be ready and prepared for a civil war within our country, it may not be backed by scripture, but we should pray and receive confirmation that it is true. We have that right and responsibility to do so.

But if he were to say, "I fear there will be a civil war in America soon" do we construe that as a warning to get ready or is it merely an articulated feeling of trepidation to be acted on without merit? Some saints would panic and run around like their head was missing. Others would say "ya, right", and then dismiss it.

What say ye all?