LDS Freedom Forum

So we should see what happened in this case and we should keep the scriptures in mind when we do. This one comes to mind.

Acts 5

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

So has the church grown in Sweden in the last few years? Or has it come to nought?

AussieOi wrote:Interesting

so tell me, what is the very close counterfeit to the Lord's real church.


other Christian denominations aren't even close

and really, visions, tongues, healings. I'm sorry, I don't see them in our church

Unfortunately, tho well-stated...

I am left to wonder: what happened the last time you presented that very question before a Gospel Doctrine class? I mean, these folk will argue that they are living the law of consecration!

Are you trying to call a disciplinary council onto your 'bad self'?

I have a problem with the title of this thread. I saw no apostasy in Sweden only questions about the church. I saw people who still love God.

https://archive.org/details/FiresideInSweden

Here's a fireside that took place. Someone posted the link on a different thread. Whoever made the recording was whispering throughout with others. They had questions, sure, but some of them seemed to me (by vocal tone, phrasing, and reactions to answers) to not want answers or explanations so much as a chance to hold the church's feet to the fire. A few others did come across as sincere and open-minded, really seeking answers. By that same token, some of the attempts by Turley and Jensen seemed to miss the target, here and there. However, I felt Elder Jensen was sincere and concerned about the souls of those present, at least once the meeting got further along, and after he realized the crowd was a bit more hostile than likely anticipated. I don't know what they were expecting, but it sounded like they were up against a firing squad and nothing short of the gold plates and a visit from Moroni himself would have placated the stirring masses. I guess it would take the same to quiet LDSFF these days... :o)

Edited/Added: Now, that said, I think the truth is somewhere in between the two rigid goalposts these camps have erected. The church shouldn't try to defend the old "all is well in Zion" narrative. That's why voices like Denver Snuffer, Daymon Smith, Isaiah, Nephi, and others can help one make better sense of historical issues, whilst still offering a believing and faithful perspective. I don't say you should latch onto any of these voices, but they add dimension and pieces to the puzzle.

Anyway, the whole series of the fireside, the Rescue plan, etc. shows the tip of the iceberg in terms of what church members and leaders will be facing in years to come. Hopefully, it was a positive learning experience for all of us, so next time, we can each have a better sense of how to listen and help navigate through these issues. It's an interesting episode for sure.

mattctr wrote:https://archive.org/details/FiresideInSweden

Here's a fireside that took place. Someone posted the link on a different thread. Whoever made the recording was whispering throughout with others. They had questions, sure, but some of them seemed to me (by vocal tone, phrasing, and reactions to answers) to not want answers or explanations so much as a chance to hold the church's feet to the fire. A few others did come across as sincere and open-minded, really seeking answers. By that same token, some of the attempts by Turley and Jensen seemed to miss the target, here and there. However, I felt Elder Jensen was sincere and concerned about the souls of those present, at least once the meeting got further along, and after he realized the crowd was a bit more hostile than likely anticipated. I don't know what they were expecting, but it sounded like they were up against a firing squad and nothing short of the gold plates and a visit from Moroni himself would have placated the stirring masses.

I guess it would take the same to quiet LDSFF these days... :o)

When I listened to this audio yesterday, I thought it sounded like there was translating from English to Swedish taking place. I could be mistaken. I thought that the Swedes were well disciplined in keeping their hurt and their anger at bay; there was no shouting going on. I have witnessed meetings where disrespectful participants handled themselves disruptively. I did not get a sense that this was going on. I don't think either side were happy with how the meeting went. In fact, it is sad to recognize that there were "sides".

jo1952 wrote:When I listened to this audio yesterday, I thought it sounded like there was translating from English to Swedish taking place. I could be mistaken. I thought that the Swedes were well disciplined in keeping their hurt and their anger at bay; there was no shouting going on. I have witnessed meetings where disrespectful participants handled themselves disruptively. I did not get a sense that this was going on. I don't think either side were happy with how the meeting went. In fact, it is sad to recognize that there were "sides".

Maybe it was translating. I thought I heard some chuckles, etc. Anyway, I've been wrong a million and one times before, so I wouldn't put it past me now.

mattctr wrote:

jo1952 wrote:When I listened to this audio yesterday, I thought it sounded like there was translating from English to Swedish taking place. I could be mistaken. I thought that the Swedes were well disciplined in keeping their hurt and their anger at bay; there was no shouting going on. I have witnessed meetings where disrespectful participants handled themselves disruptively. I did not get a sense that this was going on. I don't think either side were happy with how the meeting went. In fact, it is sad to recognize that there were "sides".

Maybe it was translating. I thought I heard some chuckles, etc. Anyway, I've been wrong a million and one times before, so I wouldn't put it past me now.

I am right there with you!!!

Seek the Truth wrote:Honestly- please, allow me to speak honestly- some people can be incredibly myopic and insular in their thinking.

People are leaving religion in droves all over the world supposedly over issues like evolution/science and an upcoming culture that has been taught gay is ok and global warming is the moral issue of our age and racism is the worst thing in the world.

A blogger I occasionally frequent is calling for the Anglican Church to teach evolution and drop the resurrection of Christ and most of the Old Testament. This sort of thing is happening everywhere.

Personally, it seems that many people are willing to cower before the flesh of other men, willing to throw revelation and priesthood power away to gain favor from men, willing to cast aside the things God has given us. Fearing men more than God.

They will not quit until you deny Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Then they will demand you deny Christ. Then, at the end, they wont even accept you unless you start to have others do the same. Just realize who you will be working for at that point.

excellent summary, I think. points well made... not the kind of 'friends' a body wants to have.

I surprisingly found listening to that meeting very helpful to me. I think there needs to be more meetings like this.

I do not feel that they were left with "no answers". I was actually surprised at some of the admissions that were made, and I also felt very good about the explanations, such as they were, that were given.

And really, at the end of the day, I felt the conclusion that was made, and which I have felt for a long time, is that it boils down to personal revelation. They admitted that contradictions in doctrine exist, that the leadership today just as leadership in the past are mortal, fallible men doing the best they can on limited revelation to build God's kingdom. This is also how I have felt, that there is no "ulterior motive" - There is very much a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation right now. I think that if they come out and just are open about everything, I think the church will be decimated. I also think that if the "all is well in Zion" mentality continues, they will also be decimated. I think they feel keenly that they are going to be held accountable on whichever side they err. And I also believe that while this is the Lord's church, that all of us, even our leaders, are left to work out exactly what to do.

While I felt that, as has been mentioned, both sides probably left that meeting dissatisfied, I felt very uplifted by it. I felt the questions were by and large sincere, although in a couple of cases I felt the questioner wasn't really wanting an answer. I also felt like some questions were not adequately answered - in some cases I felt they acknowledged they had no answer, and in some cases they either missed the point of the question or they (the church reps) just didn't answer what was asked. But I felt it was a good faith effort.

My personal feeling is the best path is to be completely open about every aspect, probably lose 90% of the membership and then move on from there. I think that the youth particularly need to be treated respectfully but also brutally honestly. If they are going out on missions at 18 or 19 years old, they need to know how to address this and there needs to be a unified message from the top down, we can't have one elder teaching what he was taught in his family and another elder giving conflicting answers.

I hate to say it, but some CORRELATION needs to happen. Not building consensus or having our own council of Nicea, but the truth needs to be dealt with, church history needs to be taught WARTS and all.

I believe that when people see how the Lord worked with such imperfect men in the past, we are far more likely and able to accept that He can work with us with all our faults as well. We need to become a church for publicans and prostitutes, not just for the self righteous whited sepulchers (and no, that is NOT a reference to the church leadership, it is a much more general condemnation).

Well put, OI.

It was 25 people
Hand invited
All Bishops and Stake Presidents.
Conducted in English

AussieOi wrote:It was 25 people
Hand invited
All Bishops and Stake Presidents.
Conducted in English

A few women, as well.

Spouses you goose
Point Is, this was a deliberately soft audience.

They had no answers

AussieOi wrote:They had no answers

They gave answers. Obviously, there wasn't a lot of time to delve into detail, and some of the answers were weak. But, like OI said, it seemed like a sincere attempt to be helpful. Now, if they dropped the ball after the fact on things they said they would deliver after the meeting, that's a disappointment, or is it? Isn't that what church history shows us? That people are very people-ish at times...

So you fly 2 guys half way around the world, armed with the specific questions, to spend an hour of pre dribble and then ask questions they knew were coming to say "there are 5 websites and we don't have Much time"

Then you let the German GA take 60 minutes to Gove them the korihor message.

9 questions. The 1st. 2 they addressed the others barely.

3 years later, we still have no answers to those questions.

Just 5 websited.
The byu paper never came.

L tom Perry still has a manuscript in his briefcase

Yeah, that might be a bit of a letdown for some. Personally, I wouldn't have done that. That said, I wouldn't sit around expecting a bunch of church leaders to have all of my answers anyway... I'm surprised by the few leaders who do know enough about it to engage the topic. I think Turley and Jensen were sincere in their efforts at the meeting--even if they failed in subsequent follow-up. Since I haven't heard the supposed Korihor lecture, I can't really comment on it. It wouldn't surprise me that a local leader wanted to look powerful for the visiting delegation of higher ups, but such is the tendency of man. Then again, maybe there's something in the story of Korihor that applied to that group, but no, let's not consider that possibility.

mattctr wrote:Yeah, that might be a bit of a letdown for some. Personally, I wouldn't have done that. That said, I wouldn't sit around expecting a bunch of church leaders to have all of my answers anyway... I'm surprised by the few leaders who do know enough about it to engage the topic. I think Turley and Jensen were sincere in their efforts at the meeting--even if they failed in subsequent follow-up. Since I haven't heard the supposed Korihor lecture, I can't really comment on it. It wouldn't surprise me that a local leader wanted to look powerful for the visiting delegation of higher ups, but such is the tendency of man. Then again, maybe there's something in the story of Korihor that applied to that group, but no, let's not consider that possibility.

The Korihor message was in the second hour of the audio. I definitely felt like he was warning these people to get their duckies in line. The truth of the matter is, it was a legitimate warning if a bit heavy-handed. His point was, you can either build upon the things that the spirit tells you is true OR you can build on the doubts and concerns that you have. I felt like the entire message of all the speakers was that it boils down to a choice - they were very up front about acknowledging problems - SERIOUS problems. To say that they were not given answers is not a very honest appraisal in my opinion.

Aussie has a point, it seems stupid to fly people half way around the world and then use the "constraints of time" as an excuse for keeping things so brief. I think there was a point that was rapidly being reached that nothing productive was going to occur. I felt that those that were seeking answers got them and sufficient to move forward relying on the spirit for guidance. There was another smaller group that were obviously disaffected and I don't think there was an answer that would have satisfied them. Just the impression I got.

The guy who had the questions about the negative feelings he had in the temple, and the nioghtmares that followed definitely deserved a better answer, and I actually could relate to a degree. I didn't have nightmares, but I was not prepared for the temple experience and was pretty freaked out myself. And honestly didn't look forward to going back. Hopefully his concerns were handled privately, I do feel that his issue was of a more personal nature and probably should have been addressed privately - and I hope that happened.

I didn't see this posted, but the 5 websites the Church offered to answer their questions are as follows.

The first LDS FAQ http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The second Encyclopedia of Mormonism Online http://eom.byu.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The third FAIR http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The fourth Neal A. Maxwell Institute http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The fifth More Good Foundation http://www.moregoodfoundation.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And how many are official web sites of the church?

That's right.

None.

Plausible deniability.

Some guy in a job paid by SLC HQ, but isn't speaking for the church.

The problem is, as these "historians" (lmao) tried to explain as the reason members have been incorrectly sold the way JS translated the plates ( in that it would appear official church position is he looked in a hat at a rock to keep the spirit ( you know) , but well meaning historians through the ages changed what happened to fit their mental picture, and hence we have the finger touching the plates translation.

So (according to them) that is why and how the church shows pictures of plates and a curtain.

And how do we know this? Well they, as historians, tell us this.

Doubting any other things?

Go to web sites put together by men mingling their latest philosophy with scripture.

Ergo. Why do we need a prophet, and where are they, and why do they perpetuate errors they know are false.

Sadly, the more they speak, the stupider they sound, and the deeper the hole they dig another aspect of our doctrine/ faith into.

I can understand why they don't say anything.

5 unofficial web sites?

Is that for real?

This was 3 years ago.

And can anyone tell me if they released all those other exciting publications they promised for 2011?

In my briefcase

AussiOi, I really hope you aren't a member as your signature states. If you are, what an embarrassment. If you aren't a member, just go away. This is the lds freedom forum. Your agenda is a joke.

No, I think Aussie has stated that he is a member... of record anyway. His label 'I am not a Mormon" is kind of a counter-slogan to the media-driven marketing effort for converts. Undoubtedly, Aussie sees much of the same Pharisaic organizational behavior in our modern corporate church that Christ railed against during His ministry. However, IMO he allows his cynicism to often push his comments into the caustic zone. I doubt one so disaffected has any motive to sit in church or cares to take sacrament or hold a calling... but that would be odds-based conjecture.

Moreover, just like we have pop-culture ward celebrity types going for the unedifying 'cheap laughs' in church settings looking for validation Aussie seems to have a mutual-support pact with certain other established contributors who really must appear (to the uninitiated) as Anti-Mormon trolls. or they might actually be, as there is no way to verify membership anyway... what delicious fun that must be to report back to your fellow alumni from Mills college that you are a female pretending to be a liberated Mormon wife... (on a website ostensibly for LDS only...) and you're still waiting with baited breath to see whether site admin will ever call you out and give you the boot.

The classic example of that would be Anselm, who is by far Joseph Smith's most vocal detractor on this site. She seems one of those but also may be a different story as a genuine LDS Oxy-Mormon gadfly who loves to poke at male leadership (and where best to do that than in Relief Society... (assuming i am wrong and she actually is a member) So I am betting that, if she is in real life an actual member of record, she rarely misses the chance to dis-respect leaders of the early church and men in general as a very regular attender at least of the third hour of the meeting block.) I see her as likely a graduate of a womens college... a wife who jauntily sports a hyphenated compound-surname, teaches her daughters to do the same, and proudly displays a gay equals sign bumper sticker at church every Sunday--- the last probably especially to disgruntle and annoy all those evil supporters of patriarchal oppression who endorse the Proclamation on the Family.

sad really.

I say sad because being sympathetic to the message that the founder/ restorer of the Lord's modern church was a waffling, manipulative lecherous traitor to his wife, an invader of other men's marriages, a gold-digging charlatan, a muttering wizard peering into a hat at a stone... (and whatever other slander one can dredge from the normally baseless 'anti-' tracts) would be expected to produce at least a little cognitive dissonance... well, in all but the most hard-hearted, passive-aggressive anti-male sociopaths.

Someone somewhere said: 'there is no such thing as an honest apostate' and there are certainly a few folk here that prove the point'. I don't know how anyone teaches their children to take the Book of Mormon seriously under such conditions- but, whatever.


If I am as right as I think I might be, and this anti-mormon sentiment is as pervasive and as well-supported from the top down as I surmise, I will likely be permanently banned within 24hrs or so. In anticipation of this administrative termination event, I will say my adieu now, while I have the chance.

LesliePOV wrote: Someone somewhere said: 'there is no such thing as an honest apostate' and there are certainly a few folk here that prove the point'. I don't know how anyone teaches their children to take the Book of Mormon seriously under such conditions- but, whatever.

Don't you think, if current Church leadership continues to obfuscate the truth and hide facts about the Church's past, and even flat out states that documented statements from past prophets and Apostles never happened, that to the rest of the world at large that statement is in danger of becoming "There is no such thing as an honest apostle"? The Church spends most of its energy and money on public relations, trying to present a good image to the world, but if by doing so they lie and then are caught in that lie their efforts are for nothing and in fact have the opposite effect.

I for one think the Church is going to have enough struggles moving forward, without the negative press and suspicion that comes from their trying to paint the Church's past with the colors of modern political correctness, then being caught with brush in hand.

Edit: The Catholic Church has held on to the same stances on many issues regardless of negative press. And when called out for their stances or how the Church operated in the past they don't try to say "Oh our leaders were never like that, they held the exact same views that are popular today on every issue." And yet we see that sort of backpedaling from our own Church leaders, even when it makes no logical sense to even try to make that claim.

Here as an example I'm talking about Brigham Young's arguably racist statements concerning blacks (which were actually fairly progressive for his time), in case you were wondering. The Church flat out stated in a press release that Brigham never made such statements, which is obviously untrue.

Fairminded wrote:

LesliePOV wrote: Someone somewhere said: 'there is no such thing as an honest apostate' and there are certainly a few folk here that prove the point'. I don't know how anyone teaches their children to take the Book of Mormon seriously under such conditions- but, whatever.

Don't you think, if current Church leadership continues to obfuscate the truth and hide facts about the Church's past, and even flat out states that documented statements from past prophets and Apostles never happened, that to the rest of the world at large that statement is in danger of becoming "There is no such thing as an honest apostle"? The Church spends most of its energy and money on public relations, trying to present a good image to the world, but if by doing so they lie and then are caught in that lie their efforts are for nothing and in fact have the opposite effect.

I for one think the Church is going to have enough struggles moving forward, without the negative press and suspicion that comes from their trying to paint the Church's past with the colors of modern political correctness, then being caught with brush in hand.

you are right and that is a good play on those words... it does make you wonder... Phariseeism running rampant. It is the response of casting Joseph Smith the way they do. and never EVER coming up with solid evidence.. I am hardly the only one to call Anselm out on this, as I am sure you must know.

And what does this say about the audience of site members that they would tolerate such repeated and unfounded slander of the head of this dispensation as they do?

Fort Nine wrote:AussiOi, I really hope you aren't a member as your signature states. If you are, what an embarrassment. If you aren't a member, just go away. This is the lds freedom forum. Your agenda is a joke.

We all should be seeking the truth. In that quest there may be times where hard questions are asked. And of course hard answers should be given. The problem is many are coming up with the hard questions but the hard answers are not being given. Just diversion and threats. This appears to be an indication of deep problems even more troubling than the original questions.

A rejection of members does not answer questions and it only delays the coming day when all questions must be answered or serious consequences will manifest. Personally I believe that day is past and the consequences are upon us.

When Jesus was asked what is truth He did not answer. But Jesus is truth. Yes Jesus held back some mysteries of the gospel and also the plan of salvation but He answered truthfully about the history of events leading up to His first coming. And He sent servants shortly after His death to give out the hard to learn doctrine.

Placing books in a pile and burning them does not take away the ideas contained in the books. Looking the other way and pretending that the church does not have serious honesty issues will not make the issues go away. Rejecting members who ask questions will not make the questions go away. As the number of rejected members increase the weight of the answers will weigh very heavy around the neck of those who are supposed to supply answers. Can anyone besides me see this? I am sure there are many who see this. But I am sure there are many that are very happy with looking the other way.

To be angry with the church is one thing, to be angry with a person is another.