LDS Freedom Forum

Called to Serve wrote:

Nephi294 wrote:Found this to be interesting:

In a solemn assembly at April 1970 general conference, at which President Joseph Fielding Smith was sustained as president of the Church, President Harold B. Lee, his counselor, conducted the voting. On that occasion, President Lee taught: "Every one is perfectly free to vote as he wishes. There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting. When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote" (Conference Report, p. 103). :ymparty:

Not to be a broken record, but . . .

Does giving full loyalty and support mean going along with something you believe is wrong? Can't you be supporting someone even while you are honestly giving them your critical opinion of their actions? I would think in any other organization, such as a business, no one would expect a loyal participant to go along with everything done no matter how damaging it was to the organization. How about the drunk driving scenario? Would a loyal friend insist on not letting you drive or would they encourage their drunk friend in their decision?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with voicing concern over faulty decisions by our leaders. I feel this is more loving toward them then quietly allowing them to act foolishly. The strongest argument I'm hearing in favor of this mall is that people trust their leaders and believe them to be inspired. It seems many are assuming this decision is correct simply because the leaders made the decision. How much better would it be for our leaders if we all questioned their decisions and gave our honest opinions of what they were doing so they could be checked in the natural maladies that inhibit man.

Col. Flagg wrote:Sustaining someone DOES NOT mean I swear an oath to never disagree with, question or criticize words, actions or decisions, especially when those actions, words or decisions do not square with what I know about gospel principles, our Savior and the Almighty.

https://zomarah.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/thomas-s-monson-a-seer-a-revelator-a-translator-and-a-prophet/ wrote:Brother Benjamin says:
October 26, 2012 at 11:32 am
As an example I can give you the fact that my Father was excommunicated in 2010 because he went to general conference and voted opposed to Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, for reasons that are eloquently expressed above. His stake president was notified that the president of the church wanted to be able to truthfully say the voting was unanimous in the affirmative and that as such my father who still regularly attends conference) must be “dealt with.” here is my letter to the church court in his defense: (redacted, you can find the letter by doing a search below.)

SmallFarm wrote:

Called to Serve wrote:

Nephi294 wrote:Found this to be interesting:

In a solemn assembly at April 1970 general conference, at which President Joseph Fielding Smith was sustained as president of the Church, President Harold B. Lee, his counselor, conducted the voting. On that occasion, President Lee taught: "Every one is perfectly free to vote as he wishes. There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting. When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote" (Conference Report, p. 103). :ymparty:

Not to be a broken record, but . . .

Does giving full loyalty and support mean going along with something you believe is wrong? Can't you be supporting someone even while you are honestly giving them your critical opinion of their actions? I would think in any other organization, such as a business, no one would expect a loyal participant to go along with everything done no matter how damaging it was to the organization. How about the drunk driving scenario? Would a loyal friend insist on not letting you drive or would they encourage their drunk friend in their decision?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with voicing concern over faulty decisions by our leaders. I feel this is more loving toward them then quietly allowing them to act foolishly. The strongest argument I'm hearing in favor of this mall is that people trust their leaders and believe them to be inspired. It seems many are assuming this decision is correct simply because the leaders made the decision. How much better would it be for our leaders if we all questioned their decisions and gave our honest opinions of what they were doing so they could be checked in the natural maladies that inhibit man.

You're assuming it was the leaders that made the decisions. I prefer to assume that they are directed by God.

Col. Flagg wrote:

hyloglyph wrote:

Nephi294 wrote:Found this to be interesting:

In a solemn assembly at April 1970 general conference, at which President Joseph Fielding Smith was sustained as president of the Church, President Harold B. Lee, his counselor, conducted the voting. On that occasion, President Lee taught: "Every one is perfectly free to vote as he wishes. There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting. When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote" (Conference Report, p. 103). :ymparty:

Hmmmm....anyone else waiting for a scriptural reference on this?

When I sustain someone, whether in my own ward or anyone called to be a GA, I do so based on the fact that I don't know that they've done anything wrong or are unworthy to hold the office to which they are being called and sustain them with faith that they will act in harmony with the will of the Lord. Sustaining someone DOES NOT mean I swear an oath to never disagree with, question or criticize words, actions or decisions, especially when those actions, words or decisions do not square with what I know about gospel principles, our Savior and the Almighty.

SmallFarm wrote:

Called to Serve wrote:

Nephi294 wrote:Found this to be interesting:

In a solemn assembly at April 1970 general conference, at which President Joseph Fielding Smith was sustained as president of the Church, President Harold B. Lee, his counselor, conducted the voting. On that occasion, President Lee taught: "Every one is perfectly free to vote as he wishes. There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting. When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote" (Conference Report, p. 103). :ymparty:

Not to be a broken record, but . . .

Does giving full loyalty and support mean going along with something you believe is wrong? Can't you be supporting someone even while you are honestly giving them your critical opinion of their actions? I would think in any other organization, such as a business, no one would expect a loyal participant to go along with everything done no matter how damaging it was to the organization. How about the drunk driving scenario? Would a loyal friend insist on not letting you drive or would they encourage their drunk friend in their decision?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with voicing concern over faulty decisions by our leaders. I feel this is more loving toward them then quietly allowing them to act foolishly. The strongest argument I'm hearing in favor of this mall is that people trust their leaders and believe them to be inspired. It seems many are assuming this decision is correct simply because the leaders made the decision. How much better would it be for our leaders if we all questioned their decisions and gave our honest opinions of what they were doing so they could be checked in the natural maladies that inhibit man.

You're assuming it was the leaders that made the decisions. I prefer to assume that they are directed by God.

AGStacker wrote:

Called to Serve wrote:

Nephi294 wrote:Found this to be interesting:

In a solemn assembly at April 1970 general conference, at which President Joseph Fielding Smith was sustained as president of the Church, President Harold B. Lee, his counselor, conducted the voting. On that occasion, President Lee taught: "Every one is perfectly free to vote as he wishes. There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting. When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote" (Conference Report, p. 103). :ymparty:

Not to be a broken record, but . . .

Does giving full loyalty and support mean going along with something you believe is wrong? Can't you be supporting someone even while you are honestly giving them your critical opinion of their actions? I would think in any other organization, such as a business, no one would expect a loyal participant to go along with everything done no matter how damaging it was to the organization. How about the drunk driving scenario? Would a loyal friend insist on not letting you drive or would they encourage their drunk friend in their decision?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with voicing concern over faulty decisions by our leaders. I feel this is more loving toward them then quietly allowing them to act foolishly. The strongest argument I'm hearing in favor of this mall is that people trust their leaders and believe them to be inspired. It seems many are assuming this decision is correct simply because the leaders made the decision. How much better would it be for our leaders if we all questioned their decisions and gave our honest opinions of what they were doing so they could be checked in the natural maladies that inhibit man.

Try telling this to those over at lds.net... those guys are ruthless. "You're speaking against the Lord's anointed!", "false prophet!", "even the devil can quote scripture!" and so forth. Don't bother stating facts, quotes or scriptures.

AGStacker wrote:Just wanted to add something from Hugh Nibley.

"Today the beautiful word Zion, with all its emotional and historical associations, is used as the name Christian was formerly used, to put the stamp of sanctity on whatever men chose to do. The Hebrew word for financial activity of any kind is mamonut, and the financier is a mamonai; that is, financing is, quite frankly, in that honest language, the business of Mammon. From the very first there were Latter-day Saints who thought to promote the cause of Zion by using the methods of Babylon. Indeed, once the Saints were told to make friends with the Mammon of unrighteousness (D&C 82:22), but that was only to save their lives in an emergency. We have the word of the Prophet Joseph that Zion is not to be built up by using the methods of Babylon. He says, "Here are those who begin to spread out buying up all the
land they are able to do, to the exclusion of the poorer ones who are not so much blessed with this worlds goods, thinking to ley foundations for themselves only, looking to their own individual familys and those who are to follow them. . . . Now I want to tell you that Zion
cannot be built up in any such way [sic]." 28

What do we find today? Zion's Investment, Zion Used Cars, Zion Construction, Zion Development, Zion Bank, Zion Leasing, Zion Insurance, Zion Securities, Zion Trust, and so on. The institutions of Mammon are made respectable by the beautiful name of Zion. Zion and Babylon both have their appeal, but the voice of latter-day revelation makes one thing perfectly clear as it tells us over and over again that we cannot have them both."

jbalm wrote:Then I guess we must abstain from "voting" if we want to follow our conscience.

hyloglyph wrote: All is not well in "Zion."
Especially if we think spending billions on shopping for fine linens and jewelry is ok, in fact inspired. The people of the church are changing. They will strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel (even if the camel costs BILLIONS).

ebenezerarise wrote:

hyloglyph wrote: All is not well in "Zion."
Especially if we think spending billions on shopping for fine linens and jewelry is ok, in fact inspired. The people of the church are changing. They will strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel (even if the camel costs BILLIONS).

This is an incredible distortion. The spending was on real estate and construction. Once again, the Church does not "own" the mall. They own the infrastructure the mall is part of. It includes offices and residences. It is in an area very important to the ongoing safety and usability of the Church campus and Temple Square. President Hinckley discussed this in General Conference twice (maybe more) and emphasized the ongoing importance of what this property means to the mission of the Church.

Those here that continue to define the mall or the City Creek development as a sell out to Babylon conveniently dismiss the facts of how the Church has managed this.

SmallFarm wrote:The most dangerous thing someone can say is: "God will not do this." It presumes to know the mind of God.
God will do what he does, it will be Holy and righteous. We usually won't see His Purpose, being shortsighted.
That's the test of faith.

hyloglyph wrote:

ebenezerarise wrote:

hyloglyph wrote: All is not well in "Zion."
Especially if we think spending billions on shopping for fine linens and jewelry is ok, in fact inspired. The people of the church are changing. They will strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel (even if the camel costs BILLIONS).

This is an incredible distortion. The spending was on real estate and construction. Once again, the Church does not "own" the mall. They own the infrastructure the mall is part of. It includes offices and residences. It is in an area very important to the ongoing safety and usability of the Church campus and Temple Square. President Hinckley discussed this in General Conference twice (maybe more) and emphasized the ongoing importance of what this property means to the mission of the Church.

Those here that continue to define the mall or the City Creek development as a sell out to Babylon conveniently dismiss the facts of how the Church has managed this.

Not a distortion. The church has indeed spent a BILLION+ dollars on City Creek. City Creek is a high end shopping center. President Hinckley did in fact bring the issue up in GC, but there was never a vote, nor were any specific numbers mentioned in regards to cost. Many people living outside of Utah were unfamiliar with the issue and did not understand what was going on.

71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.

The church campus I'm sure would get along just fine without high end shopping centers. In fact, I suspect that angels and the Spirit of the Lord would feel more welcomed if the money changers were as far away as possible. The Lord feels much more comfortable in the poor slums than he does around the upper classes of society. We can read about this in the New Testament.

I didn't want to bring this up because it is disturbing but here it is, 17 seconds in you can see---the President of the High Priesthood participating in the ---- one, two, three, LETS GO SHOPPING!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmkZ2Zy9Gok" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are many videos on youtube where one can see and hear all about what is going on now across the street from the Holy House of the Lord.

I wish I were distorting things and this was all a bad dream.

Col. Flagg wrote:

SmallFarm wrote:The most dangerous thing someone can say is: "God will not do this." It presumes to know the mind of God.
God will do what he does, it will be Holy and righteous. We usually won't see His Purpose, being shortsighted.
That's the test of faith.

The test of faith is having the fortitude and knowledge to know when words, actions and/or decisions are being said, done and made that are contrary to what we know about the gospel and the nature of God and Christ and having the courage to speak up and out about them instead of simply accepting blindly. I wonder if those who see nothing wrong with City Creek would feel the same way if the church had, say, invested $3 billion into Larry H. Miller's motor speedway out in Tooele, UT or if they had dropped $3 billion into a water park chain or chain of movie theaters? But somehow, a mall that caters to the rich is fine? :-\ :-\ :-\

SmallFarm wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:

SmallFarm wrote:The most dangerous thing someone can say is: "God will not do this." It presumes to know the mind of God.
God will do what he does, it will be Holy and righteous. We usually won't see His Purpose, being shortsighted.
That's the test of faith.

The test of faith is having the fortitude and knowledge to know when words, actions and/or decisions are being said, done and made that are contrary to what we know about the gospel and the nature of God and Christ and having the courage to speak up and out about them instead of simply accepting blindly. I wonder if those who see nothing wrong with City Creek would feel the same way if the church had, say, invested $3 billion into Larry H. Miller's motor speedway out in Tooele, UT or if they had dropped $3 billion into a water park chain or chain of movie theaters? But somehow, a mall that caters to the rich is fine? :-\ :-\ :-\

The test of faith is letting others use their agency according to the dictates of their conscience.

I just wanted to say thank you so much for your courage in speaking out against the abuse and misuse of $ in the church. I agree w/ what so many have said. Here is my take. Say Jesus were to return today. He would laugh at this church that claims to be his, and spend his time and efforts among the poor, destitute, and broken hearted. He would eat with drug abusers, prostitutes, and aids victims. He would hold starving children in Africa and Latin America and weep. And if asked to take a tour of SLC church headquarters, if he even did, he would simply ask how they dared do this in his sacred name??? And he would proceed to call the 15 to repentance and give a long parable/ lecture about how they should be directing their funds.

hyloglyph wrote: Not a distortion. The church has indeed spent a BILLION+ dollars on City Creek. City Creek is a high end shopping center.

President Hinckley did in fact bring the issue up in GC, but there was never a vote, nor were any specific numbers mentioned in regards to cost. Many people living outside of Utah were unfamiliar with the issue and did not understand what was going on.

The church campus I'm sure would get along just fine without high end shopping centers. In fact, I suspect that angels and the Spirit of the Lord would feel more welcomed if the money changers were as far away as possible. The Lord feels much more comfortable in the poor slums than he does around the upper classes of society. We can read about this in the New Testament.

I didn't want to bring this up because it is disturbing but here it is, 17 seconds in you can see---the President of the High Priesthood participating in the ---- one, two, three, LETS GO SHOPPING!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmkZ2Zy9Gok" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hyloglyph wrote:Haha you seem like a real nice guy Smallfarm. How all these different things are made to be tests of faith to you is cracking me up.

BrentL wrote:taxation

Col. Flagg wrote:Just thought I'd post this comment from a reader at this blog site about City Creek:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/ ... -this.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just wanted to say thank you so much for your courage in speaking out against the abuse and misuse of $ in the church. I agree w/ what so many have said. Here is my take. Say Jesus were to return today. He would laugh at this church that claims to be his, and spend his time and efforts among the poor, destitute, and broken hearted. He would eat with drug abusers, prostitutes, and aids victims. He would hold starving children in Africa and Latin America and weep. And if asked to take a tour of SLC church headquarters, if he even did, he would simply ask how they dared do this in his sacred name??? And he would proceed to call the 15 to repentance and give a long parable/ lecture about how they should be directing their funds.

Can't argue with that.

ebenezerarise wrote:

hyloglyph wrote: Not a distortion. The church has indeed spent a BILLION+ dollars on City Creek. City Creek is a high end shopping center.

No, it's not. There is shopping there. But City Creek is FAR more than a mall. There are thousands of offices there. Hundreds of residences. It is a massive redevelopment project and President Hinckley spoke directly of its purpose to everyone.

President Hinckley did in fact bring the issue up in GC, but there was never a vote, nor were any specific numbers mentioned in regards to cost. Many people living outside of Utah were unfamiliar with the issue and did not understand what was going on.

A vote? A vote for what? Since when has there ever been a vote about how the Church spends money? The President of the Church specifically stated that the tithing funds were not used for this project. That's where your interest and involvement as a member of the Church ends.

The church campus I'm sure would get along just fine without high end shopping centers. In fact, I suspect that angels and the Spirit of the Lord would feel more welcomed if the money changers were as far away as possible. The Lord feels much more comfortable in the poor slums than he does around the upper classes of society. We can read about this in the New Testament.

This is so out of context it is laughable. City Creek is adjacent to the Church campus. The mission of the Church is represented there. As stated before, the Savior tossed the moneychangers from the Temple, not the shopping center across the street.

City Creek is an all-inclusive redevelopment project designed to bring jobs, homes and ammenities to an area that previously was blighted, depressed, empty and a magnet for crime. I spent many, many years there, in fact, most of my working life was in an office on those blocks. I know what it was and what it has now become.

I didn't want to bring this up because it is disturbing but here it is, 17 seconds in you can see---the President of the High Priesthood participating in the ---- one, two, three, LETS GO SHOPPING!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmkZ2Zy9Gok" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So friggin' what? He also goes to Jazz games.

Your take on this is entirely distorted. Do some research. City Creek is much more than a mall and the Church's involvement here has been plenty transparent. I attended every press conference managed by the Presiding Bishopric's office during the course of the past decade in regards to this project. There were plenty of City council debates/discussions about how the project would unfold and how it would affect the community. The Church HAD to be transparent about the whole project just because they knew there would be critics out there like you who sit at a distance and cast judgment without being informed.

To condemn the President of the High Priesthood for saying "Let's go shopping!" would be to condemn Joseph for saying "Let's build Nauvoo" or Brigham saying "Let's grow those silk worms" or Lorezno saying "Let's invest in that Sugar Beet factory" or Heber saying "Let's invest in that bank"...

You see, there is a solid history of the Church building resources through thrift, industry, wise investment and honest business practices. This has, in every instance, been for the building up of the kingdom and so too is City Creek. I suggest you do your part and address your concerns by actually researching what the Church has been up to. There is plenty of information online. Start at downtownrising.com.

Seek the Truth wrote:

BrentL wrote:taxation

HeirofNumenor wrote:

jbalm wrote:Then I guess we must abstain from "voting" if we want to follow our conscience.

Or come out publicly (REAL names) in opposition...