LDS Freedom Forum

Stahura wrote:I believe. Remember when Jeffery Holland spoke of that young man said he didn't know if a certain thing was true, but believed? And elder Holland almost cried and gave the kid a huge hug?
I too believe, and he would hug me

EdGoble wrote:

Stahura wrote: I sustain the brethren. As far as I know and unless God shows me otherwise, I will believe.

One thing you say is correct, I don't have a sense of loyalty to our leaders. I'm loyal only to Jesus Christ, and I'll follow his true messengers.

You seemed to have been saying that our current leaders DO NOT have great spiritual power , and aren't capable of doing what Joseph,Moses, and any other prophet did. You seem to be saying that even though we call them Seer's , it's only a title,and only every once in awhile a prophet comes that can do what Joseph Moses Mosiah Alma and Nephi did.

What I'm saying is, if our leaders are true messengers(I believe and hope they are) and are Prophets and Seer's, then they SHOULD have great spiritual power and can perform the same tasks that other prophets have done.having the ability to do so is different from actually doing it. I only say they need the ability to do these things. Do I have to see these miracles and prophecies and revealed truths? No,I don't need to see anything.im not a sign seeker.But If they don't have this power, they couldn't be actual Seer's and Prophets. If they aren't actual Seer's and prophets , why would God ask me to follow them? They can't be his mouthpiece if they aren't even capable of doing anything that prophets and Seer's do.

Because I have been taught, I follow, under one condition. That they are true messengers. If God reveals to me that they aren't, I will not follow.
The day that God reveals to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, I will declare it and stand up and tell everybody what I know.

Until then, I sustain them, and seek an answer.

Ok. I think I might be starting to understand. Tell me if I got this right:

(1) You are saying that you hope they are prophets according to Definition of what I've found in scriptures of what you hope for.
(2) You want God to answer your prayers. You want God to tell you that they are prophets according to the definition I found in Scriptures. And you will have uncertainty until God tells you that they are prophets according to your definition.
(3) If God answers your prayers and answers to the affirmative that they are prophets according to definition I found in scriptures, THEN you will accept them as prophets.
(4) You have no sense of loyalty.

I submit to you that sustaining and loyalty are the same thing, different words to describe it. You cant bifurcate this. You cannot have one without the other.

I submit to you that if you have no loyalty, and you do not sacrifice your own interests in this thing, then you do not sustain them, and you do not follow them.

What if you simply have loyalty regardless, and make this easy? I guess that is what I'm saying, is that you can use your own agency to make that loyalty a choice. But you are not doing that.

Thinker wrote:Ed,
Why are you asking for loyalty to imperfect people?
Do you believe in the 1st commandment to not have other gods before God?
Do you believe in the greatest commandments (loving God and others as ourselves) and that they prioritize above "all the law and the prophets"?

Stahura wrote: I will think more about what you said in this post Ed, about loyalty.

Stahura wrote:It's almost too hard to bear the amount of judgement and ridicule that comes from TBM's. It honestly hurts sometimes.

EdGoble wrote:

Thinker wrote:Ed,
Why are you asking for loyalty to imperfect people?
Do you believe in the 1st commandment to not have other gods before God?
Do you believe in the greatest commandments (loving God and others as ourselves) and that they prioritize above "all the law and the prophets"?

It's not me that asked for loyalty. It is God that has commanded loyalty to his servants, in no uncertain terms.

I find it simply a silly proposition that remnant/Snufferite-ideology/Brethren-unloyalist-ideology adherents would ever try to equate loyalty to the brethren with worship.

Thinker wrote:

EdGoble wrote:

Thinker wrote:Ed,
Why are you asking for loyalty to imperfect people?
Do you believe in the 1st commandment to not have other gods before God?
Do you believe in the greatest commandments (loving God and others as ourselves) and that they prioritize above "all the law and the prophets"?

It's not me that asked for loyalty. It is God that has commanded loyalty to his servants, in no uncertain terms.

I find it simply a silly proposition that remnant/Snufferite-ideology/Brethren-unloyalist-ideology adherents would ever try to equate loyalty to the brethren with worship.

Why are you teaching false things?
God does not command loyalty to imperfect people "in no uncertain terms"!
That is evil and contrary to what God has commanded and you know it.
"Thou shalt have no other gods." We are to only worship God.
God is love and love never fails. But prophets fail. Charity (the pure love of Christ) never faileth. Trust in the flesh - and you fail. Trust in God - and all things will work out for GOoD.

Even Jesus had the humility to shift praise and worship to God..."why callest thou me good? None is good save one, that is God."

EdGoble wrote:

Thinker wrote:

EdGoble wrote:

Thinker wrote:Ed,
Why are you asking for loyalty to imperfect people?
Do you believe in the 1st commandment to not have other gods before God?
Do you believe in the greatest commandments (loving God and others as ourselves) and that they prioritize above "all the law and the prophets"?

It's not me that asked for loyalty. It is God that has commanded loyalty to his servants, in no uncertain terms.

I find it simply a silly proposition that remnant/Snufferite-ideology/Brethren-unloyalist-ideology adherents would ever try to equate loyalty to the brethren with worship.

Why are you teaching false things?
God does not command loyalty to imperfect people "in no uncertain terms"!
That is evil and contrary to what God has commanded and you know it.
"Thou shalt have no other gods." We are to only worship God.
God is love and love never fails. But prophets fail. Charity (the pure love of Christ) never faileth. Trust in the flesh - and you fail. Trust in God - and all things will work out for GOoD.

Even Jesus had the humility to shift praise and worship to God..."why callest thou me good? None is good save one, that is God."

Nice. Hey Thinker, I have a proposition for you. Here's a hug....... There. Now group hug..... Thinker, Sathura... good.... Now, let's make friends too and settle on the fact that we disagree on this point. Me and Marc are getting along real well now that we know that we will never agree, but let's hug anyway.......

EdGoble wrote:

minorityofone wrote: So you seem to be saying doctrine and covenants 121 is wrong, because it clearly states that many are called and the lord does not magically qualify them. In fact it seems to state that most of those called would only suppose they had authority and then amen to their priesthood... So if you read your comment you will see that your comment is way out of harmony with section 121. Not saying I care if you believe section 121 but I am guessing you might...

I am not aware of any lack of righteousness in the men at the head that would disqualify them as prophets. I view it as a Snufferite-ideology tactic to resort to D&C 121 to try to justify saying that our prophets seers and revelators are not. I would say that you are not in a position to judge of their righteousness and whether they are disqualified, just as much as Denver Snuffer is not, or anyone else of the remnant faction.

minorityofone wrote:

EdGoble wrote:

minorityofone wrote: So you seem to be saying doctrine and covenants 121 is wrong, because it clearly states that many are called and the lord does not magically qualify them. In fact it seems to state that most of those called would only suppose they had authority and then amen to their priesthood... So if you read your comment you will see that your comment is way out of harmony with section 121. Not saying I care if you believe section 121 but I am guessing you might...

I am not aware of any lack of righteousness in the men at the head that would disqualify them as prophets. I view it as a Snufferite-ideology tactic to resort to D&C 121 to try to justify saying that our prophets seers and revelators are not. I would say that you are not in a position to judge of their righteousness and whether they are disqualified, just as much as Denver Snuffer is not, or anyone else of the remnant faction.

Let's stick with the topic shall we instead of trying to switch the topic to the lds leaders. Whether they are righteous or not is beside the point of discussion. You made the claim that the Lord qualifies who He calls. That is a falsehood. I referenced section 121 to support the idea that the lord does not qualify people who are called, in fact many are called but few are chosen, and it is definitely up to the individual whether they become qualified or not. Such has always been, and always will be the case. The lord cannot force the powers of heaven, revelation (besides carnal revelation devoid of pure knowledge as in an Angel appearing but no spiritual truth being woven into the individual) or gifts of the spirit on anyone. Plus you equate a call from the voice of men to a call from God and I do not. Not explain that I am guessing you believe that if someone is called by president monson and president monson says that person is called by the lord to be an apostle, you would say that is a call from the lord i would guess. The fact is that the recent lds "apostles" called expressing surprise at their "calling" only exposes that they were not called of God, at least not that they stated. To actually obtain a call from the lord, one would have to know the spirit of revelation and know his voice, that is not a requirement to receiving a calling from the church leaders. All you have to do is listen to someone you have sustained as a leader tell you you are called and members believe that somehow equates to a call from God.
I am no snufferite and never have been. Haven't read one of his books. Now concerning seers, again you tried to sidestep the issue. You are saying that the lds leaders are seers when they are not using seer stones, this contradicts what you have sustained as scripture. Moroni said that the "possession AND use was what constituted seers.."
The point is that if you claim that someone is a seer, while that person either does not possess, or does not use seer stones, you are opposing your scriptures, and therefore according to your standard of truth you are wrong. I tried to be as plain as possible here. Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with politicians on this forum who will not stick to the topic. I completely understand why when the evidence is not in their favor.

minorityofone wrote:

EdGoble wrote:

minorityofone wrote: So you seem to be saying doctrine and covenants 121 is wrong, because it clearly states that many are called and the lord does not magically qualify them. In fact it seems to state that most of those called would only suppose they had authority and then amen to their priesthood... So if you read your comment you will see that your comment is way out of harmony with section 121. Not saying I care if you believe section 121 but I am guessing you might...

I am not aware of any lack of righteousness in the men at the head that would disqualify them as prophets. I view it as a Snufferite-ideology tactic to resort to D&C 121 to try to justify saying that our prophets seers and revelators are not. I would say that you are not in a position to judge of their righteousness and whether they are disqualified, just as much as Denver Snuffer is not, or anyone else of the remnant faction.

Let's stick with the topic shall we instead of trying to switch the topic to the lds leaders. Whether they are righteous or not is beside the point of discussion. You made the claim that the Lord qualifies who He calls. That is a falsehood. I referenced section 121 to support the idea that the lord does not qualify people who are called, in fact many are called but few are chosen, and it is definitely up to the individual whether they become qualified or not. Such has always been, and always will be the case. The lord cannot force the powers of heaven, revelation (besides carnal revelation devoid of pure knowledge as in an Angel appearing but no spiritual truth being woven into the individual) or gifts of the spirit on anyone. Plus you equate a call from the voice of men to a call from God and I do not. To explain that I am guessing you believe that if someone is called by president monson and president monson says that person is called by the lord to be an apostle, you would say that is a call from the lord i would guess. The fact is that the recent lds "apostles" called expressing surprise at their "calling" only exposes that they were not called of God, at least not that they stated. To actually obtain a call from the lord, one would have to know the spirit of revelation and know his voice, that is not a requirement to receiving a calling from the church leaders. All you have to do is listen to someone you have sustained as a leader tell you you are called and members believe that somehow equates to a call from God.
I am no snufferite and never have been. Haven't read one of his books. Now concerning seers, again you tried to sidestep the issue. You are saying that the lds leaders are seers when they are not using seer stones, this contradicts what you have sustained as scripture. Moroni said that the "possession AND use was what constituted seers.."
The point is that if you claim that someone is a seer, while that person either does not possess, or does not use seer stones, you are opposing your scriptures, and therefore according to your standard of truth you are wrong. I tried to be as plain as possible here. Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with politicians on this forum who will not stick to the topic. I completely understand why when the evidence is not in their favor.

Stahura wrote:His words are my words.

EdGoble wrote:

Stahura wrote:His words are my words.

Then you will reap that which you are now sowing.

EdGoble wrote:

Stahura wrote:His words are my words.

Then you will reap that which you are now sowing.

Stahura wrote:

EdGoble wrote:

Stahura wrote:His words are my words.

Then you will reap that which you are now sowing.

Do you not sense the contempt and pride in your posts and accusations?
Your fruit is bitter. I pray for you brother

EdGoble wrote:

Stahura wrote:

EdGoble wrote:

Stahura wrote:His words are my words.

Then you will reap that which you are now sowing.

Do you not sense the contempt and pride in your posts and accusations?
Your fruit is bitter. I pray for you brother

If you want to focus on me and my flaws, you can do so all you want, and you will find plenty of flaws. Go right ahead. That's called Ad Hominem, my friend. Focusing on the messenger rather than the message. But hey, if you are into logical fallacies, more power to you. If it helps you in your justifications, then hey, go for it.

EdGoble wrote:

minorityofone wrote:

EdGoble wrote:

minorityofone wrote: So you seem to be saying doctrine and covenants 121 is wrong, because it clearly states that many are called and the lord does not magically qualify them. In fact it seems to state that most of those called would only suppose they had authority and then amen to their priesthood... So if you read your comment you will see that your comment is way out of harmony with section 121. Not saying I care if you believe section 121 but I am guessing you might...

I am not aware of any lack of righteousness in the men at the head that would disqualify them as prophets. I view it as a Snufferite-ideology tactic to resort to D&C 121 to try to justify saying that our prophets seers and revelators are not. I would say that you are not in a position to judge of their righteousness and whether they are disqualified, just as much as Denver Snuffer is not, or anyone else of the remnant faction.

Let's stick with the topic shall we instead of trying to switch the topic to the lds leaders. Whether they are righteous or not is beside the point of discussion. You made the claim that the Lord qualifies who He calls. That is a falsehood. I referenced section 121 to support the idea that the lord does not qualify people who are called, in fact many are called but few are chosen, and it is definitely up to the individual whether they become qualified or not. Such has always been, and always will be the case. The lord cannot force the powers of heaven, revelation (besides carnal revelation devoid of pure knowledge as in an Angel appearing but no spiritual truth being woven into the individual) or gifts of the spirit on anyone. Plus you equate a call from the voice of men to a call from God and I do not. To explain that I am guessing you believe that if someone is called by president monson and president monson says that person is called by the lord to be an apostle, you would say that is a call from the lord i would guess. The fact is that the recent lds "apostles" called expressing surprise at their "calling" only exposes that they were not called of God, at least not that they stated. To actually obtain a call from the lord, one would have to know the spirit of revelation and know his voice, that is not a requirement to receiving a calling from the church leaders. All you have to do is listen to someone you have sustained as a leader tell you you are called and members believe that somehow equates to a call from God.
I am no snufferite and never have been. Haven't read one of his books. Now concerning seers, again you tried to sidestep the issue. You are saying that the lds leaders are seers when they are not using seer stones, this contradicts what you have sustained as scripture. Moroni said that the "possession AND use was what constituted seers.."
The point is that if you claim that someone is a seer, while that person either does not possess, or does not use seer stones, you are opposing your scriptures, and therefore according to your standard of truth you are wrong. I tried to be as plain as possible here. Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with politicians on this forum who will not stick to the topic. I completely understand why when the evidence is not in their favor.

Continue to dispute if you wish. Let's see what the results will be for you in eternity. I have made my statements on this thread already. The way is plain and clear, be loyal, or try to justify your disloyalty. Let's see where it gets you.