LDS Freedom Forum

iWriteStuff wrote:

Stahura wrote:

carbon dioxide wrote:Alma 4:10 can apply today. It is said that the Book of Mormon is a pattern for our day and history can repeat itself if we do not learn from it. The only thing that we have been promised in this matter is that the Church will not fall into complete apostasy again. That does not mean the Church can not fall into substantial apostasy. That does not mean the church can't regress. It is possible that the Church could experience for the 2nd coming similar conditions that it did in 3 Nephi before Christ came to the Nephites. A struggling church with wickedness all around them banging on the door.

I've never considered this before... Complete Apostasy/Substatial Apostasy. You see, the way Denver Snuffer put it really confused me ,that the Church is in state of total apostasy. It doesn't seem that it can be TOTALLY apostate, thats my opinion. I think what you suggest is possible. Partial Apostasy? I find that possible.. not saying that's what has happened, but I do think it's possible. Good input.

I'll say this, Stahura: if you're not BofR, you sure are starting to sound like him. Gradually talking/reasoning yourself out of the church one "conclusion" at a time.

"Oh no, we're not TOTALLY apostate, just mostly."
"The members aren't TOTALLY bad, just mostly a stumbling block."
"Brigham Young wasn't TOTALLY wrong, just way up in the night about polygamy."
"The Brethren aren't TOTALLY incorrect, but they sure do make a lot of bad statements and doctrinally inaccurate positions."

These are steps. But mind where the path is taking you.

Nah. I still thought this was possible years ago when I was as "TBM" as one can be, and honestly drooled at the sight of General Authorities.

I'm not going to make any rash decisions, I only follow the Spirit. But thanks for your concern

Stahura wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:I'll say this, Stahura: if you're not BofR, you sure are starting to sound like him. Gradually talking/reasoning yourself out of the church one "conclusion" at a time.

"Oh no, we're not TOTALLY apostate, just mostly."
"The members aren't TOTALLY bad, just mostly a stumbling block."
"Brigham Young wasn't TOTALLY wrong, just way up in the night about polygamy."
"The Brethren aren't TOTALLY incorrect, but they sure do make a lot of bad statements and doctrinally inaccurate positions."

These are steps. But mind where the path is taking you.

Nah. I still thought this was possible years ago when I was as "TBM" as one can be, and honestly drooled at the sight of General Authorities.

I'm not going to make any rash decisions, I only follow the Spirit. But thanks for your concern

iWriteStuff, caught them yesterday. Kitkat posted right in the middle.

rewcox wrote: iWriteStuff, caught them yesterday. Kitkat posted right in the middle.

Where? If true, I'd like to see. It would seem duplicitous and dishonest to use several different usernames to lead people into false conclusions about the nature of the person posting.

I don't see that as something Christ would condone.

iWriteStuff wrote:

rewcox wrote: iWriteStuff, caught them yesterday. Kitkat posted right in the middle.

Where? If true, I'd like to see. It would seem duplicitous and dishonest to use several different usernames to lead people into false conclusions about the nature of the person posting.

I don't see that as something Christ would condone.

Who is using several usernames? Kitkat?

Stahura wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:

rewcox wrote: iWriteStuff, caught them yesterday. Kitkat posted right in the middle.

Where? If true, I'd like to see. It would seem duplicitous and dishonest to use several different usernames to lead people into false conclusions about the nature of the person posting.

I don't see that as something Christ would condone.

Who is using several usernames? Kitkat?

The accusation is against you, bro. And to be fair, you've fed that impression.

iWriteStuff wrote:

Stahura wrote:

iWriteStuff wrote:

rewcox wrote: iWriteStuff, caught them yesterday. Kitkat posted right in the middle.

Where? If true, I'd like to see. It would seem duplicitous and dishonest to use several different usernames to lead people into false conclusions about the nature of the person posting.

I don't see that as something Christ would condone.

Who is using several usernames? Kitkat?

The accusation is against you, bro. And to be fair, you've fed that impression.

Oh I see. I'm not concerned. Go ask Brian, he'll clear it up

I'll just say this, thanks to Rewcox, iwritestuff, jaredbees,a12, and others, I have put more effort into reading general conference talks and seeking answers regarding them.
I I've probably read more conference talks in the past month that the previous 8 combined. I'm much less critical of them now, and had a really good experience the other day.

For that, I thank you guys.

Stahura wrote:
Oh I see. I'm not concerned. Go ask Brian, he'll clear it up

Personally, I've got my doubts. You two don't sound similar. Similar conclusions, almost. But BofR sounds like an angry chihuahua eager to bite ankles. You seem more.... St. Bernard-ish, whatever that means....

iWriteStuff wrote:

Stahura wrote:
Oh I see. I'm not concerned. Go ask Brian, he'll clear it up

Personally, I've got my doubts. You two don't sound similar. Similar conclusions, almost. But BofR sounds like an angry chihuahua eager to bite ankles. You seem more.... St. Bernard-ish, whatever that means....

stbernard.jpg

Hahaha that's the best thing I've heard In a while! St. Bernard?

Kit kat is bofm's wife, bless her heart.

Stahura wrote:

isaacs2066 wrote:Could it be because we do not obey section 107 of the doctrine and covenants? That is certainly why many leave the church...

Specifically which parts?

Most of it. Give it a read through and compare church organization to what we have today.

Hi isaacs2066. Are you like a DS type?

Is this the verse you are questioning:

46 Mahalaleel was four hundred and ninety-six years and seven days old when he was ordained by the hand of Adam, who also blessed him.

Seriously, I don't mind having a discussion on 107. Looks clear to me. What parts are the problems?

isaacs2066 wrote:

Stahura wrote:

isaacs2066 wrote:Could it be because we do not obey section 107 of the doctrine and covenants? That is certainly why many leave the church...

Specifically which parts?

Most of it. Give it a read through and compare church organization to what we have today.

isaacs2066 wrote:

Stahura wrote:

isaacs2066 wrote:Could it be because we do not obey section 107 of the doctrine and covenants? That is certainly why many leave the church...

Specifically which parts?

Most of it. Give it a read through and compare church organization to what we have today.

Will do

rewcox wrote:Hi isaacs2066. Are you like a DS type?

Is this the verse you are questioning:

46 Mahalaleel was four hundred and ninety-six years and seven days old when he was ordained by the hand of Adam, who also blessed him.

Seriously, I don't mind having a discussion on 107. Looks clear to me. What parts are the problems?

isaacs2066 wrote:

Stahura wrote:

isaacs2066 wrote:Could it be because we do not obey section 107 of the doctrine and covenants? That is certainly why many leave the church...

Specifically which parts?

Most of it. Give it a read through and compare church organization to what we have today.

First. I don't question scripture; I study it. Also I have never read anything from Snuffer so I don't know if I am like him or not. Although from what I hear people say about what he teaches I think some is true and some isn't.

Secondly, these verses are interesting.

36 The standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion, form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the quorum of the presidency, or to the traveling high council.

 37 The high council in Zion form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the councils of the Twelve at the stakes of Zion.

Especially interesting is the fact that nowhere in the doctrine and covenants or anywhere else for that matter did the lord say that we don't need the standing presiding high council anymore.

This is a problem seeing as how it no longer exists.

Also of note, this section specifically says that the presidency, the standing presiding high council, the traveling presiding high council, the first seventy, and the standing high councils are equal in authority.

There is also the fact that the twelve are supposed to call the seventies to go on missions and no one else. This would most certainly preclude standing elders from being called in their place. Although the standing elders may travel it is not their primary duty to do so, it is the primary duty of the traveling elders or seventies.

Apparently the twelve either don't know how to read, or more likely are just to old to remember what their job is...

This is just a short list of the ways the church as an organization eschews the word of the lord for the word of man.

Jeremiah 17:5 "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."