LDS Freedom Forum

Jonesy wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 10:09 pm I think this contrasts the importance of the keys very well.

MIDGLEY: Are you concerned with the leadership of the Church?
NIBLEY: Nope, not a bit. I certainly am not. The leadership of the Church is Jesus Christ, and he knows what he is doing. Don't worry.
MIDGLEY: I am tempted to ask you if you would sustain Judas?
NIBLEY: Of course I would sustain Judas. He was on of the apostles.
MIDGLEY: But he was a devil.
NIBLEY: Remember what the Lord said. "I [have] chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil" (John 6:70). But he chose him. The Lord has his purposes in these things. If we sustained only perfect people, we wouldn't sustain anybody. The Lord has his purposes in these things.(p. 40)

Jonesy, I'll answer as an institutional apostate, which is what you mean. I don't think you think of me as an apostate from Christ or from His servant, Joseph Smith.

Your Midgley/ Nibley conversation has value insomuch as the premise is that Jesus chose His disciples and therefore He Himself sustains those whom He has chosen.

Your intended lesson to be derived from the hypothetical conversation is rendered moot when that premise doesn't hold in the situation we find ourselves today. In other words, when Jesus has not chosen anybody in the Quorum of the 12 or Frirst Presidency. If Jesus HAS chosen even one of them, where is the revelation that He has done so. To lower the bar even further, can you point to a statement where a current apostle even CLAIMS to have been sent personally by Jesus on a specific errand? Apostle means "to be sent." So it should raise eyebrows when none of them claim to have been sent from the presence of God to deliver a specific message or do certain things.

It is not sufficient to merely repeat what a true servant (Joseph Smith) was commanded to do by the Lord. Those commandments were given to Joseph. HE had a mission. HE was personally accountable to the Lord for fulfilling the assignment.

Piggy backing on top of Joseph, riding his coattails, I hope you will agree, is a very poor and inadequate substitute for the real thing.

Stahura, the above post is another example of clearly heretical material.

Topcat, I respectfully disagree with you opinion. You clearly believe the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ is fallen and corrupted. You claim they no longer hold priesthood authority and power. This is heresy and apostate.

In reference to the policy definition of apostasy you underlined bishop or higher authority every time. It is the God given duty and responsibility of those with authority in the church to investigate and adjudicate apostasy. What makes one apostate per the policy is acting in opposition to the church and its leaders, teaching false doctrine after being corrected, following the teachings of apostate sects, and joining another church. Who would determine if these things have been done, of course it would be adjudicated by those who had that responsibility. Of course, if you already believed those with the responsibility to adjudicate apostasy in the church were fallen and no longer with authority you would not be willing to submit or follow their counsel. You would just claim they were the ones who were in apostasy, as you have already done. The policy is reasonable, sensible, and necessary.

Of course, you and everyone else is free to believe as true whatever they want to believe. If I believed as you I would join another church or follow Jesus Christ on my own. I know many people who have done both of these things. They are both very easy to do and I believe it would make me happier to leave a church I was so convinced was fallen.

caburnha wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:46 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:14 am

Centerline wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 9:54 pm How could the Lord have let this happen? I mean, couldn’t he have provided some revelation to a prophet along the way to prevent the dire circumstances just described?

Agency is the the eternal principle. He has given up plenty of prophecies warning us!

The Church has hidden these revelations, lied about them and when they had to admit they existed because of the internet making is available to so many of the saints, they said those "Thus saith the Lord" revelations do not apply to us, because they were never submitted and voted upon in conference.

Funny thing, all those supposed revelations they have been having for the last 139 years, not one of them were a "Thus saith the Lord" revelations, and they have even been forgetting to vote on them in conference! When did you vote on the Gay policies, or the changes in the garments of the Holy Priesthood, the Endowment, even the deleting of a complete branch of Priesthood, the Seventies, and the list goes on and on!

In the latter days, if they will reject the truth, then the Messiah will send them strong delusions. He was not talking to the Catholic, who already have apostatized long ago, or the Jews who have rejected His fullness. Now you can add the Gentiles to that list. And the Father (Yah), as it says in 3 Nephi 16, shall have the Messiah take the Gospel away from them and give it back unto the House of Yisrael. After the Time of the Gentiles has come in. It has come in!!!

Why was the more spiritual and greater portion of the Book of Mormon kept from the Gentile Saints? The answer is in the Book of Mormon itself!

So how could the Messiah let this happen? It was foreseen from the beginning, how the Gentiles would reject the Fullness of the Gospel, they not being the Elect, they could not bear living such truths! It will be taken and given to those who are more worth of such divine light, and who will not reject it!

The Melchizedek Covenants, which IS the New and Everlasting Covenant, are the two covenants the you have made:

Law of Chastity (which included the Plurality of Wives)!
Law of Consecration (which is living the Order of Enoch)!

So how is the Latter-Day Saints and their Church doing in living the Fullness of the Gospel?

They have decided the G_d no longer desires us to keep our Covenants! Really??? Are they kidding? Where is that revelation? The First Manifesto was a sham for the government, and easily proven to not be a revelation. Just go and read the 1886 Revelation, the one the Church lied about for a century until they could no longer hid it. And Consecration, they have no revelation anywhere!

Oath breakers and Covenant breakers!!! Even all!

Or was the law of chastity broken much earlier when we sought after the same thing that 3 different wicked people sought after in the Book of Mormon?
Jacob 1:12-16
Mosiah 11:1-4
Ether 10:2-5

In Jacob, I hardly see LDS seeking excessive wives before the 1900's, save maybe only Brigham as one might make a case, however, he did not do it without the blessing of the Messiah and the Priesthood. And after a 110 plus years of actively fighting living the law of Celestial Plural Marriages (CPM), that is not the situation now. As for seeking Gold and Silver (verse 16), would be a very good observation of what LDS epitomized for the last 130 years. Wealth however can be for good or evil depending on what they do with such riches. The point here about seeking riches is, it is not part of the New and Everlasting Covenant, which is the subject matter at hand!

In Mosiah, Noah, a wicked king, did not keep the commandments of G_d, and he walk after the desires of his own heart, and had many wives and concubines. Living this principle, one must be called to live this principle for the glory and building of the kingdom of G_d. And Noah did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. He probably allowed killing of babies and the act of gays. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness. And Noah placed a heavy tax on everything (tax of one fifth part of all they possessed). But again I do not see this having anything to do with the N&EC (New and Everlasting Covenant), or the Initial LDS Church doing such things in the beginning (1800's), the leadership did not, not keep the commandments of G_d, causing the people to commit whoredoms, or all manner of wickedness, and then heavily tax the people, to support the GA's families!

In Ether, we find the same thing as Mosiah. Riplakish did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, (which was not given him by the Priesthood, for he did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord, which was the problem) but he did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne, yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings. Again, his unrighteousness as the leader was not the issue with the Prophet Joseph or his Apostle Brigham who followed him. They did not lay on men heavy taxes to build many great and spacious buildings (temples). They did what was right in the sight of G_d!

So your point here you are asking is that the early Saints: "was the law of chastity broken much earlier when we sought after the same thing that 3 different wicked people sought after in the Book of Mormon?" was not true.

They did keep the commandments, and did seek to do what was right in the sight of G_d. They did not lay heavy burdens upon the Saint through taxes, and have until much more recently not lead the people into whoredoms and allowed wickedness to be number with them.

Have you ever read the 1886 Revelation on the Commandment to the Saints and to the degree of the Messiah desire for the Saints to live Celestial Plural Marriage? It is the the direct command to us, not the history of the failures of others who did so without the command to do so!

Shalom

Centerline wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 10:21 am Stahura, the above post is another example of clearly heretical material.

Topcat, I respectfully disagree with you opinion. You clearly believe the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ is fallen and corrupted. You claim they no longer hold priesthood authority and power. This is heresy and apostate.

In reference to the policy definition of apostasy you underlined bishop or higher authority every time. It is the God given duty and responsibility of those with authority in the church to investigate and adjudicate apostasy. What makes one apostate per the policy is acting in opposition to the church and its leaders, teaching false doctrine after being corrected, following the teachings of apostate sects, and joining another church. Who would determine if these things have been done, of course it would be adjudicated by those who had that responsibility. Of course, if you already believed those with the responsibility to adjudicate apostasy in the church were fallen and no longer with authority you would not be willing to submit or follow their counsel. You would just claim they were the ones who were in apostasy, as you have already done. The policy is reasonable, sensible, and necessary.

Of course, you and everyone else is free to believe as true whatever they want to believe. If I believed as you I would join another church or follow Jesus Christ on my own. I know many people who have done both of these things. They are both very easy to do and I believe it would make me happier to leave a church I was so convinced was fallen.

My personal opinion is that many sit on the fence because they have not received conviction nor witness of their decisions and beliefs to look elsewhere. They have a bone to pick with a decision the leadership has made, have been offended in some way or can’t get past something in church history and use the forum as a sounding board to try and find some form of validation or even worse someone else who thanks them for their false paradigm.

Instead they could be so much more for Christ, his church, and preparations for his return. They could participate with unrestrained effort in the gathering of Israel in establishing zion and partnering with the Lord to the things they were actually foreordained to do.

While it is true we all can repent and be forgiven, one thing we can not get back is time. Time wasted that could have been allowing the lord to work through us in small ways to bring about his purposes. I speak to myself when I say this and hope and pray everyday I won’t waste his time.

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 7:09 am Stahura,

My question remains. Words mean things. Much disagreement and confusion in the Church results from lack of clarity on the meanings of terms.

Without the definition of "apostasy" or "heresy" being understood, this thread can easily wander into the murky waters of tradition, that has no resemblance to the pure waters of Christ.

There is a world of difference between the true, Biblical meaning of apostasy and the Church's definition of apostasy.

As I noted previously, the scriptural definition refers to falling away from Christ and His Gospel. It means sinning with no desire to be humble or repentant (turning to face God).

However, the institutional definition is to be disobedient to Church leaders.

The Church leaders could be apostate according to the Biblical definition, and then a good, faithful member not obey the leaders or follow after the apostasy of the leaders, and then the member be labeled as the apostate.

This is exactly what is happening in the Church.


To not address the two definitions is to keep one's head in the sand.

Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 codifies a corrupted and polluted definition of "apostasy". I'll manifest the corruption in broad daylight:

Apostasy.

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, “but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

Please note that #4 was added in Nov 2015 and removed last Friday.

Note the conspicuous absence of an essential qualifier. It SHOULD read in those places I underlined:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, when leaders are in harmony with the Gospel.

The intentional omission of this absolutely ESSENTIAL caveat is in and of itself an act of brazen APOSTASY. Talk about lifting up your head in wickedness, to quote the BoM!

If the members knew of this treachery against Christ and open invitation for leaders to abuse their authority, I'd imagine a revolt would occur overnight.

You CANNOT detach the leaders from Christ as it creates a slippery slope and leads immediately to gross abuse of power and "authority."

Section 6.7.3 absolutely and consciously detaches the leadership from Christ and the truths of the gospel. This section is permission from the First Presidency for THEM and every leader under their purview to flagrantly abuse their power. It's the devil granting immunity to his servants. I have no doubt many Mormon bishops and stake presidents would not accept the invitation to abuse others, but it's there for the taking. A little nudge from above, sprinkled with a threat to "do what we say or else..." is enough to get most leaders to engage in abuse, and I have no doubt believing or thinking they are acting RIGHTEOUSLY, just as a cop thinks he's acting righteously when he abuses his authority.

This section is of the devil. Talk about opening the flood gates to unrighteous dominion and hell! You wonder how or why members can be ignored or branded apostate for positions they take or concerns they have that are actually in harmony with the gospel? Now you know.

I say it boldly and everyone knows it but the trolls.

What I'm saying is true because it's plain as day to any honest soul, and the evidence that what I'm saying is true is that no rebuttals exist. However, I know somebody will vainly try to conjure up an excuse for why the Brethren would approve this definition.

If you're "Member B" and try to approach "Leader A" (say a bishop or stake president) with the desire to understand how this corrupt and intrinsically evil definition of "apostasy" could be codified in Handbook 1, YOU WILL BE IGNORED. Mark it down. First ignored, then threatened and ridiculed. "Know your place in the organization!"

Any doubt?

What are the chances that your bishop or stake president will run this up the chain, seeking answers?

ZERO chance. And all the non pretenders know exactly why.

Any bishop or stake president would immediately be released, or threatened with excommunication himself. He'd be told to shut up.

Who says I speak lies in this comment? How?

Do I get an "Amen" from those who appreciate truth and abhor giving leaders, through this evil definition, carte blanche the opportunity to abuse members?

I just saw a picture on this forum of two movie theaters next to each other.

One had nobody in line to buy tickets. The name of the movie was, "An Inconvenient Truth".

On the other hand, the other movie theater had people lined up down the street waiting to purchase tickets. The name of the movie? "A Comforting Lie" (to the best of my recollection).

Shall I apologize for shining light on an inconvenient Truth? I'm sorry. Don't kill the messenger.

The Church's very definition of apostasy is apostate.

And if the Church's lawyerly definition is apostate, then I suggest using the correct definition, at least in this thread.

I'm familiar with everything you're saying.
I personally think the Church definition of apostasy is not would it should be. However, the whole point of this thread is to understand why these people think this place is full anti/apostate/dissenting people/views and trying to get them to explain which views those are. From their perspective, the definition apostasy is the current church definition of apostasy.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 10:21 am Stahura, the above post is another example of clearly heretical material.

Topcat, I respectfully disagree with you opinion. You clearly believe the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ is fallen and corrupted. You claim they no longer hold priesthood authority and power. This is heresy and apostate.

In reference to the policy definition of apostasy you underlined bishop or higher authority every time. It is the God given duty and responsibility of those with authority in the church to investigate and adjudicate apostasy. What makes one apostate per the policy is acting in opposition to the church and its leaders, teaching false doctrine after being corrected, following the teachings of apostate sects, and joining another church. Who would determine if these things have been done, of course it would be adjudicated by those who had that responsibility. Of course, if you already believed those with the responsibility to adjudicate apostasy in the church were fallen and no longer with authority you would not be willing to submit or follow their counsel. You would just claim they were the ones who were in apostasy, as you have already done. The policy is reasonable, sensible, and necessary.

Of course, you and everyone else is free to believe as true whatever they want to believe. If I believed as you I would join another church or follow Jesus Christ on my own. I know many people who have done both of these things. They are both very easy to do and I believe it would make me happier to leave a church I was so convinced was fallen.

Centerline,

Let's keep this as simple and plain, so even a child can understand this.

With all due respect, you are avoiding the specific thing (documented in Section 6.7.3, mind you). I don't believe you are doing it on purpose. What is happening is the auto pilot of confirmation bias kicks in, and it's very hard to break free. It happens to ALL of us, including me, so please don't get defensive.

May we review the specific item which I have zeroed in on as an apostate policy/ teaching/ act. I am saying that, AS WRITTEN, Section 6.7.3 is 100% apostate and opens the door for widespread abuse of authority. You can review my previous comment for details on what the Section says.

What your confirmation bias (CB) is leading you to do is avoid contact with the slam dunk convicting evidence I've presented.

Your unintentional CB is trying to persuade you to look elsewhere and not at the fact. Where does your CB point you to? To quote you, "It is the God given duty and responsibility of those with authority in the church to investigate and adjudicate apostasy".

This is true. But your statement is addressing another question. The completely tangential question (which I'm not asking or disputing!) might have been, "What is the duty of a Church leader?" Your response seems fair and reasonable. You said, "It is the God given duty and responsibility of those with authority in the church to investigate and adjudicate apostasy". Fine and dandy. Agreed! But, if there's some adjudication to be done, wouldn't it sure be nice to have an accurate definition of "apostasy" instead of the devil's definition? The first two rules of thumb, I'd imagine, in corrupting a court is to get you guy installed as the judge, and then to corrupt the definitions of "law".

Please note that your true statement (quoted above) is off topic from the apostate and evil definition of "apostasy" that Handbook 1 requires leaders to follow. Please look only at the evidence presented. I don't believe you're employing the "red herring fallacy", because intent is involved. Whereas, what is happening here is a natural byproduct of confirmation bias (CB).

For the readers here who are struggling against their own CB (as I did for many years on this question), let's focus on the facts:

1) Handbook 1 is a guideline, a rule book by which leaders are supposed to govern the Church.
2) It is "secret", in that it's not made available to everyone, just those who've been vetted enough to be called into leadership positions.
3) Section 6.7.3 does in fact say that disobedience to leaders is considered apostate.
4) It is a fact, that no qualifier or caveat is listed. It is in fact omitted. What caveat? Something like this (added in bold and blue), "As used here, apostasy refers to members who: 1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, when the leaders are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ."

The obvious question is, If that caveat is not included, then the message to leaders is they (from the First Presidency on down to bishop level) have LITERAL carte blanche to abuse their authority. "Do what I say, or else!" In this definition of "apostasy" there is no check on abuse. The very definition encourages abuse.

"Son, you gonna bow your back and talk back to me and have the audacity to challenge me? Boy, you better learn your place. Sit down and shut up."

That's the true spirit of Section 6.7.3. But it's said with an affected calm and "loving" and professional voice and these words are uttered, "We love you. We value you. But since you are opposing the Church you leave us with no choice but to excommunicate you. We want you to come back and enjoy full fellowship. We desire you to have returned to you the full blessings of the Temple and Atonement and priesthood blessings. You are always welcome back and please know that we will be there to support you."

Wait a second, here's an actual example from a SP to righteous member IN harmony with the Gospel, but found guilty of disobedience to the leaders:

It is with love and concern that I write you this letter.

As I think you know well, although you are no longer a member of the church you are still very welcome to meet and counsel with me and your Bishop. I hope you will take the opportunity to do so. We warmly advise you to sacrament meeting, other public meetings and social functions. Stake and ward leaders and members have a strong desire to continue our friendship with you. We hope you will have that desire as well.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have... And to discuss the specific steps necessary for you to come back to the church. I stand ready to do that at any time.

EVERYBODY here on this forum, and in the Church should be repulsed by Section 6.7.3. It's a worn-out saying, but here goes:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 12:04 pm

Wait a second, here's an actual example from a SP to righteous member IN harmony with the Gospel, but found guilty of disobedience to the leaders:

It is with love and concern that I write you this letter.

As I think you know well, although you are no longer a member of the church you are still very welcome to meet and counsel with me and your Bishop. I hope you will take the opportunity to do so. We warmly advise you to sacrament meeting, other public meetings and social functions. Stake and ward leaders and members have a strong desire to continue our friendship with you. We hope you will have that desire as well.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have... And to discuss the specific steps necessary for you to come back to the church. I stand ready to do that at any time.

I'm assuming that's DS?

Stahura wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 12:07 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 12:04 pm

Wait a second, here's an actual example from a SP to righteous member IN harmony with the Gospel, but found guilty of disobedience to the leaders:

It is with love and concern that I write you this letter.

As I think you know well, although you are no longer a member of the church you are still very welcome to meet and counsel with me and your Bishop. I hope you will take the opportunity to do so. We warmly advise you to sacrament meeting, other public meetings and social functions. Stake and ward leaders and members have a strong desire to continue our friendship with you. We hope you will have that desire as well.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have... And to discuss the specific steps necessary for you to come back to the church. I stand ready to do that at any time.

I'm assuming that's DS?

I've seen several of them, and they all look alike. Such loving words on paper are shared, in the very act of abuse of authority. I can think of some crude analogy, but will forebear.

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 12:12 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 12:07 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 12:04 pm

Wait a second, here's an actual example from a SP to righteous member IN harmony with the Gospel, but found guilty of disobedience to the leaders:

It is with love and concern that I write you this letter.

As I think you know well, although you are no longer a member of the church you are still very welcome to meet and counsel with me and your Bishop. I hope you will take the opportunity to do so. We warmly advise you to sacrament meeting, other public meetings and social functions. Stake and ward leaders and members have a strong desire to continue our friendship with you. We hope you will have that desire as well.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have... And to discuss the specific steps necessary for you to come back to the church. I stand ready to do that at any time.

I'm assuming that's DS?

I've seen several of them, and they all look alike. Such loving words on paper are shared, in the very act of abuse of authority. I can think of some crude analogy, but will forebear.

It's true. In some of these cases even some of these bishops involved (and Stake Presidents) disagreed with the action that was taken.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 11:54 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 7:09 am Stahura,

My question remains. Words mean things. Much disagreement and confusion in the Church results from lack of clarity on the meanings of terms.

Without the definition of "apostasy" or "heresy" being understood, this thread can easily wander into the murky waters of tradition, that has no resemblance to the pure waters of Christ.

There is a world of difference between the true, Biblical meaning of apostasy and the Church's definition of apostasy.

As I noted previously, the scriptural definition refers to falling away from Christ and His Gospel. It means sinning with no desire to be humble or repentant (turning to face God).

However, the institutional definition is to be disobedient to Church leaders.

The Church leaders could be apostate according to the Biblical definition, and then a good, faithful member not obey the leaders or follow after the apostasy of the leaders, and then the member be labeled as the apostate.

This is exactly what is happening in the Church.


To not address the two definitions is to keep one's head in the sand.

Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 codifies a corrupted and polluted definition of "apostasy". I'll manifest the corruption in broad daylight:

Apostasy.

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, “but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

Please note that #4 was added in Nov 2015 and removed last Friday.

Note the conspicuous absence of an essential qualifier. It SHOULD read in those places I underlined:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, when leaders are in harmony with the Gospel.

The intentional omission of this absolutely ESSENTIAL caveat is in and of itself an act of brazen APOSTASY. Talk about lifting up your head in wickedness, to quote the BoM!

If the members knew of this treachery against Christ and open invitation for leaders to abuse their authority, I'd imagine a revolt would occur overnight.

You CANNOT detach the leaders from Christ as it creates a slippery slope and leads immediately to gross abuse of power and "authority."

Section 6.7.3 absolutely and consciously detaches the leadership from Christ and the truths of the gospel. This section is permission from the First Presidency for THEM and every leader under their purview to flagrantly abuse their power. It's the devil granting immunity to his servants. I have no doubt many Mormon bishops and stake presidents would not accept the invitation to abuse others, but it's there for the taking. A little nudge from above, sprinkled with a threat to "do what we say or else..." is enough to get most leaders to engage in abuse, and I have no doubt believing or thinking they are acting RIGHTEOUSLY, just as a cop thinks he's acting righteously when he abuses his authority.

This section is of the devil. Talk about opening the flood gates to unrighteous dominion and hell! You wonder how or why members can be ignored or branded apostate for positions they take or concerns they have that are actually in harmony with the gospel? Now you know.

I say it boldly and everyone knows it but the trolls.

What I'm saying is true because it's plain as day to any honest soul, and the evidence that what I'm saying is true is that no rebuttals exist. However, I know somebody will vainly try to conjure up an excuse for why the Brethren would approve this definition.

If you're "Member B" and try to approach "Leader A" (say a bishop or stake president) with the desire to understand how this corrupt and intrinsically evil definition of "apostasy" could be codified in Handbook 1, YOU WILL BE IGNORED. Mark it down. First ignored, then threatened and ridiculed. "Know your place in the organization!"

Any doubt?

What are the chances that your bishop or stake president will run this up the chain, seeking answers?

ZERO chance. And all the non pretenders know exactly why.

Any bishop or stake president would immediately be released, or threatened with excommunication himself. He'd be told to shut up.

Who says I speak lies in this comment? How?

Do I get an "Amen" from those who appreciate truth and abhor giving leaders, through this evil definition, carte blanche the opportunity to abuse members?

I just saw a picture on this forum of two movie theaters next to each other.

One had nobody in line to buy tickets. The name of the movie was, "An Inconvenient Truth".

On the other hand, the other movie theater had people lined up down the street waiting to purchase tickets. The name of the movie? "A Comforting Lie" (to the best of my recollection).

Shall I apologize for shining light on an inconvenient Truth? I'm sorry. Don't kill the messenger.

The Church's very definition of apostasy is apostate.

And if the Church's lawyerly definition is apostate, then I suggest using the correct definition, at least in this thread.

I'm familiar with everything you're saying.
I personally think the Church definition of apostasy is not what it should be. However, the whole point of this thread is to understand why these people think this place is full anti/apostate/dissenting people/views and trying to get them to explain which views those are. From their perspective, the definition apostasy is the current church definition of apostasy.

Okay. Gotcha.

The only explanation I've seen in responses here is that which is expressed in Section 6.7.3. The die-hard institutional defenders here aren't taking issue with virtually anything specific, except the "disobedience" to Church leaders. THAT is what they point to. Besides that, most of the "apostate" views that I've seen you share and stuff I share are actually in conformance with the Scriptures. Ironically, the one beef the apologists for the Church have is NON scriptural.

Even DrTanner here is quoting Pres Eyring's talk which shames people into praying for their leaders and actually asks for people to love him. Pres Eyring brands people as "in need of repentance" if they aren't "sustaining" their leaders. The implicit idea is that the leaders are in 100% harmony with the Gospel and the Church = the Lord.

ajax wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 1:30 pm It all boils down to the one and only doctrine left: FTP. If you don’t agree with or defer to them, your done. It doesn’t matter if you believe in Jesus and the BoM and seek to live it the best you can according to the dictates of your own conscience. There is no reasonable dialogue, divergence of opinion or general acceptance. Local control and autonomy and true common consent where the rights and privileges of membership are made manifest have been stomped out and replaced by centralized control and hierarchies. Put your white shirt on, get back in line and shut up. Oh, and when we enter the room, stand, and don’t sit back down until we do, and don’t stand back up until we do.. lol

Your last point is the most humorous.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 11:54 am I'm familiar with everything you're saying.
I personally think the Church definition of apostasy is not would it should be. However, the whole point of this thread is to understand why these people think this place is full anti/apostate/dissenting people/views and trying to get them to explain which views those are. From their perspective, the definition apostasy is the current church definition of apostasy.

The correct term for the word Apostasy is:

A abandonment or renunciation of a previous loyalty or religion!

If a person rejects the revealed Gospel of the Messiah, or the principles that it is based upon, that is Apostasy. Who can do this? A person, a group of people, and governing institution, and a church. In the Messiah's day, we saw Judas (a person), we was the Essenes (a group), we saw the Roman and Herod (a government/institutions), and we saw the Pharisees (the Church).

It depends on who is judging who. Each thought they were doing good or the right, though some would change their mind over time.

Topcat, I enjoy the discourse you are providing and the understanding it creates.

You accuse me of confirmation bias when I could accuse you of the same thing and it is very easy to do when someone doesn’t agree with your opinion.

If you added the following wording to the policy:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, when the leaders are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Your addition being, when the leaders are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, it would change nothing. The individuals who have the God given authority to adjudicate the matter would be the ones to determine if it was in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don’t know if you just have a problem with church authority or authority in general but this is how authority works. You can disagree all you want with their determinations and manner of adjudication but the bottom line is they have the authority.

Again, the policy clearly states the prohibited behavior being repeated acts of clear, open, and public opposition. Yes, of course those in authority would be in the position of determining what behavior violates this prohibition. So we are left with the fact that you choose to believe there is rampant unrighteous dominion being exercised by a fallen priesthood leadership in the church. I disagree with your opinion but respect you and your right to have this opinion.

Your confirmation bias in this area is preventing you from seeing the other side. Anyone can understand very easily what you believe. There will be no rebellion because millions of members of the church do not share your opinion.

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 12:24 pm Okay. Gotcha.

The only explanation I've seen in responses here is that which is expressed in Section 6.7.3. The die-hard institutional defenders here aren't taking issue with virtually anything specific, except the "disobedience" to Church leaders. THAT is what they point to. Besides that, most of the "apostate" views that I've seen you share and stuff I share are actually in conformance with the Scriptures. Ironically, the one beef the apologists for the Church have is NON scriptural.

Even DrTanner here is quoting Pres Eyring's talk which shames people into praying for their leaders and actually asks for people to love him. Pres Eyring brands people as "in need of repentance" if they aren't "sustaining" their leaders. The implicit idea is that the leaders are in 100% harmony with the Gospel and the Church = the Lord.

It does seem that "Evil Speaking of the Lords Anointed" is the only thing they truly have an issue with. I don't see any specific doctrinal concerns being expressed anywhere. They might disagree with a lot of what's said here regarding polygamy, tithing, the doctrine of Christ, but there's a tendency to see a defensive/emotional response as soon as it has something to do with church leaders and that's when the labels start coming out.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 1:33 pm Topcat, I enjoy the discourse you are providing and the understanding it creates.

You accuse me of confirmation bias when I could accuse you of the same thing and it is very easy to do when someone doesn’t agree with your opinion.

If you added the following wording to the policy:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, when the leaders are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Your addition being, when the leaders are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, it would change nothing. The individuals who have the God given authority to adjudicate the matter would be the ones to determine if it was in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don’t know if you just have a problem with church authority or authority in general but this is how authority works. You can disagree all you want with their determinations and manner of adjudication but the bottom line is they have the authority.

Again, the policy clearly states the prohibited behavior being repeated acts of clear, open, and public opposition. Yes, of course those in authority would be in the position of determining what behavior violates this prohibition. So we are left with the fact that you choose to believe there is rampant unrighteous dominion being exercised by a fallen priesthood leadership in the church. I disagree with your opinion but respect you and your right to have this opinion.

Your confirmation bias in this area is preventing you from seeing the other side. Anyone can understand very easily what you believe. There will be no rebellion because millions of members of the church do not share your opinion.

Centerline,

I see the other side. I'm repelled by it. I believe non transparency of Handbook 1 is not a good sign. Non transparency doesn't engender trust. Does it?

You say "this is how authority works". That's a Babylonian idea. It's authoritarian. It is totally telestial in thought and character.

I'm sorry you don't see it. I really am. Cops say what you say, as they molest your rights. They grin and say, "This is how it works!" as they deprive you of your liberty, property, and even life! Using authority to compel is evil.

On the one hand, YES, authority for corporations and clubs and companies, etc. "work that way." Of course, the Church as a corporation, with its officers and leaders can and do have the legal right to adjudicate how they decide. So I agree with you, as a telestial corporation, "the bottom line is they have the authority."

But when the Church claims to speak for Christ, it's a whole other ballgame. Can you separate the two? Most Mormons can't because separating the two is too painful for them -- their carnal & spiritual security - the ROCK of their faith - is threatened. Please, I'm sincerely interested in your response. Can you see that the Church is unique (ok, maybe like the Catholics too) in that it says it speaks for Christ. This means, it cannot and should not flash the badge of authority like other telestial organizations in enforcing its will on members' souls.

Because of the Church claims to speak for Christ, it must be held to a higher standard. What standard? The standard of the Gospel, as contained in the holy scriptures.

So...Does Section 6.7.3 meet that standard? Or does that section read like a telestial authoritarian thug wrote it who cares NOTHING about the Gospel? And I mean NOTHING.

Boiling it down, is it Christ-like, is it in harmony with Jesus' will or His gospel, to say, "Obey me, or I'll label you an apostate and will excommunicate you"?

You said:

The individuals who have the God given authority to adjudicate the matter would be the ones to determine if it was in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

What is "authority"? I hope when you consider the meaning of authority, you will lean on DC 121. That's the real manual for priesthood leaders!

DC 121 reveals that authority may be conferred upon us, but that those who receive it lose it oh so easily. Verse 37 explains how the leadership loses their authority. When they...

...undertake to cover their sins, or to gratify their pride, their vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Authority to act for God is so very tenuous and "is inseparably connected with the powers of heaven...that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness" (v. 36).

Is it a principle of righteousness to codify this statement: "Obey me or I might excommunicate you"?

Is that threat possibly "covering sins"? Or "gratifying the leader's pride"? Or, their "vain ambition"? Is that threat attempting to control somebody (exercise control and dominion) in even the slightest degree of unrighteousness?

Needless to say, such a threat is precisely what unrighteous dominion is all about. It's the VERY definition of abuse of authority. It's evil. It's the mind of Satan, and is at the opposite end of the spectrum from love and charity.

Going back to your statement:

The individuals who have the God given authority to adjudicate the matter would be the ones to determine if it was in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I trust you see that leaders have no authority if they are attempting to control others. Section 6.7.3 AUTHORIZES the leader to abuse people. As I stated, there is no caveat. Nothing ties the leader's actions to the gospel. Remember, authority is INSEPARABLY CONNECTED to the powers of heaven. Section 6.7.3 serves to TERMINATE any connection. I'll say it again, it institutionalizes abuse.

Do you hear what you're saying? Can you not see how you are consenting to the deck being stacked against YOU? Against YOU, my friend.

The leaders, you say, are the ones doing the adjudicating based on a false non scriptural, idolatrous guideline which is the VERY guideline they are instructed to follow! It's nuts. CRAAAZY. The wolves are guarding the hen house and holding their court, and you really are okay with this set up?

Look, I know it's not easy to come to grips with inconvenient truth. What have I said or reported that is inaccurate, or that is not in conformity with the scriptures? As far as rebuttals to the facts I've shared, the only attempt (I've seen so far) at rationalizing 6.7.3 is to say "they have the authority. Deal with it." Is that really how you want to play it?

Do you not realize that I'm speaking up in your defense as well. Not just mine. I'm speaking for the weak among us. You may be at the wrong end of the firing squad (church court) some day. You may have some concern. YOU may be told to shut up. You may say, "Hey, wait a second, I have a valid question." The reply, "Boy, sit down and SHUT. UP." Maybe then you'll remember that the attitude you're getting is coming from leadership training when Section 6.7.3 was instilled in the heart and soul of the leader.

And lest we forget, let me ask you: If such codified abuse exists right now in Section 6.7.3, how many bishops and stake presidents might succumb to the invitation (in Section 6.7.3) to abuse their authority? The chilling answer:

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose (the Lord being sarcastic, as near as I can tell), they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

One more chilling thought for you. If I've not been able to convince you so far by my words, there may be a very simple explanation as to why I can't convince you. The problem is awareness, or lack thereof. The Lord explained it this way. He said in verse 38 that people (and he referred to "almost all of us") frequently are not "aware" we are abusing others using authority. The Lord says the result of this unawareness and the spirit leaving us is that we are "left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God."

This is a very chilling statement from our dear Lord. He says we persecute the saints and fight against God! And He says we are not even aware!

Lest you think that doesn't apply to you most likely (and me too), verse 39 clears up any doubt. That's why many are called and few are chosen.

May God bless us all to see the Truth.

Topcat,
Can we work this from the top down so I can understand where our difference in opinion begins?

The priesthood is the power and authority of God delegated to man. Priesthood keys are the right to direct the use of that power. All priesthood keys come from Heavenly Father through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Do you believe President Russell M. Nelson holds the priesthood and all the priesthood keys necessary for governing the entire Church, the Church being the Kingdom of God on earth?

If the answer to that question is yes then I will freely admit there are those in the church to whom priesthood keys have been delegated who have exercised unrighteous dominion. I have no personal experience with this happening but I’m sure in an organization this large it has taken place. But, claiming this has happened is entirely different than it actually happening. I’m sure there are many people who feel as if they have been the victim of this situation from there subjective perspective. I would in no way minimize how they feel. There subjective perspective and how they feel about the situation is not always the truth.

I don’t go around labeling people apostate or there beliefs heretic. I’m only doing this here because it’s the Definitive Anti-Mormon Thread.

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 11:31 am

caburnha wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:46 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:14 am

Centerline wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 9:54 pm How could the Lord have let this happen? I mean, couldn’t he have provided some revelation to a prophet along the way to prevent the dire circumstances just described?

Agency is the the eternal principle. He has given up plenty of prophecies warning us!

The Church has hidden these revelations, lied about them and when they had to admit they existed because of the internet making is available to so many of the saints, they said those "Thus saith the Lord" revelations do not apply to us, because they were never submitted and voted upon in conference.

Funny thing, all those supposed revelations they have been having for the last 139 years, not one of them were a "Thus saith the Lord" revelations, and they have even been forgetting to vote on them in conference! When did you vote on the Gay policies, or the changes in the garments of the Holy Priesthood, the Endowment, even the deleting of a complete branch of Priesthood, the Seventies, and the list goes on and on!

In the latter days, if they will reject the truth, then the Messiah will send them strong delusions. He was not talking to the Catholic, who already have apostatized long ago, or the Jews who have rejected His fullness. Now you can add the Gentiles to that list. And the Father (Yah), as it says in 3 Nephi 16, shall have the Messiah take the Gospel away from them and give it back unto the House of Yisrael. After the Time of the Gentiles has come in. It has come in!!!

Why was the more spiritual and greater portion of the Book of Mormon kept from the Gentile Saints? The answer is in the Book of Mormon itself!

So how could the Messiah let this happen? It was foreseen from the beginning, how the Gentiles would reject the Fullness of the Gospel, they not being the Elect, they could not bear living such truths! It will be taken and given to those who are more worth of such divine light, and who will not reject it!

The Melchizedek Covenants, which IS the New and Everlasting Covenant, are the two covenants the you have made:

Law of Chastity (which included the Plurality of Wives)!
Law of Consecration (which is living the Order of Enoch)!

So how is the Latter-Day Saints and their Church doing in living the Fullness of the Gospel?

They have decided the G_d no longer desires us to keep our Covenants! Really??? Are they kidding? Where is that revelation? The First Manifesto was a sham for the government, and easily proven to not be a revelation. Just go and read the 1886 Revelation, the one the Church lied about for a century until they could no longer hid it. And Consecration, they have no revelation anywhere!

Oath breakers and Covenant breakers!!! Even all!

Or was the law of chastity broken much earlier when we sought after the same thing that 3 different wicked people sought after in the Book of Mormon?
Jacob 1:12-16
Mosiah 11:1-4
Ether 10:2-5

In Jacob, I hardly see LDS seeking excessive wives before the 1900's, save maybe only Brigham as one might make a case, however, he did not do it without the blessing of the Messiah and the Priesthood. And after a 110 plus years of actively fighting living the law of Celestial Plural Marriages (CPM), that is not the situation now. As for seeking Gold and Silver (verse 16), would be a very good observation of what LDS epitomized for the last 130 years. Wealth however can be for good or evil depending on what they do with such riches. The point here about seeking riches is, it is not part of the New and Everlasting Covenant, which is the subject matter at hand!

In Mosiah, Noah, a wicked king, did not keep the commandments of G_d, and he walk after the desires of his own heart, and had many wives and concubines. Living this principle, one must be called to live this principle for the glory and building of the kingdom of G_d. And Noah did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. He probably allowed killing of babies and the act of gays. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness. And Noah placed a heavy tax on everything (tax of one fifth part of all they possessed). But again I do not see this having anything to do with the N&EC (New and Everlasting Covenant), or the Initial LDS Church doing such things in the beginning (1800's), the leadership did not, not keep the commandments of G_d, causing the people to commit whoredoms, or all manner of wickedness, and then heavily tax the people, to support the GA's families!

In Ether, we find the same thing as Mosiah. Riplakish did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, (which was not given him by the Priesthood, for he did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord, which was the problem) but he did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne, yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings. Again, his unrighteousness as the leader was not the issue with the Prophet Joseph or his Apostle Brigham who followed him. They did not lay on men heavy taxes to build many great and spacious buildings (temples). They did what was right in the sight of G_d!

So your point here you are asking is that the early Saints: "was the law of chastity broken much earlier when we sought after the same thing that 3 different wicked people sought after in the Book of Mormon?" was not true.

They did keep the commandments, and did seek to do what was right in the sight of G_d. They did not lay heavy burdens upon the Saint through taxes, and have until much more recently not lead the people into whoredoms and allowed wickedness to be number with them.

Have you ever read the 1886 Revelation on the Commandment to the Saints and to the degree of the Messiah desire for the Saints to live Celestial Plural Marriage? It is the the direct command to us, not the history of the failures of others who did so without the command to do so!

Shalom

I don't want to derail this into a polygamy thread, but I'll just answer with my opinion. Funny how my opinion condemning an apostate practice, is considered apostate....

Yes I'm aware of the revelation of John Taylor found after his death. But I do question it's divine origin for several reasons.

As for the Book of Mormon scriptures I shared... I just find it nearly impossible to believe that after Mormon and Moroni saw our day, and saw our struggles and chastisements, that they would have deliberately included 3 separate accounts of the wickedness of multiple wives and concubines in three separate peoples that occured immediately after the death of a righteous ruler.... I believe a convincing case has made made that Joseph never taught nor practiced polygamy, but rather fought against its increasing influence and practice (within various levels of the church) until his death.

If Mormon say our day, and knew the Lord would require us to live a law of multiple wives, why would he include these three stories (Nephites after Nephi's death, King Noah, and King Riplakish) in such a way as to make it appear unrighteous and wicked? 3 cases, 3 witnesses, 3 warnings. How can we just ignore this, especially given what transpired in our history... Is it not reasonable to draw the conclusion that we were being warned that "that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." ?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 5:56 pm Topcat,
Can we work this from the top down so I can understand where our difference in opinion begins?

The priesthood is the power and authority of God delegated to man. Priesthood keys are the right to direct the use of that power. All priesthood keys come from Heavenly Father through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Do you believe President Russell M. Nelson holds the priesthood and all the priesthood keys necessary for governing the entire Church, the Church being the Kingdom of God on earth?

If the answer to that question is yes then I will freely admit there are those in the church to whom priesthood keys have been delegated who have exercised unrighteous dominion. I have no personal experience with this happening but I’m sure in an organization this large it has taken place. But, claiming this has happened is entirely different than it actually happening. I’m sure there are many people who feel as if they have been the victim of this situation from there subjective perspective. I would in no way minimize how they feel. There subjective perspective and how they feel about the situation is not always the truth.

I don’t go around labeling people apostate or there beliefs heretic. I’m only doing this here because it’s the Definitive Anti-Mormon Thread.

Centerline,

This type of abuse is mainstream. Why?

Because it has been institutionalized by the improper definition in Section 6.7.3.

You've just not seen the impact.

If you want to personally see the impact, go ask your priesthood leaders, "Can you explain to me why obedience to church leaders and not Jesus Christ is the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not?"

They won't have an answer for you, and will ask you to let it go if you push them. And if you continue to push them after being asked to stand down because they're not going to change the definition, they will charge you with apostasy and cast you out.

THE lesson they want to teach you and all of us is: THEY are the boss. THEY rule. It is THEIR right. Ask Laman and Lemuel if they'd agree with Section 6.7.3! The lust for power is real and manifested in 6.7.3:

Yea, they did murmur against me, saying: Our younger brother thinks to rule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people.

2 Nephi 5:3

Feel free to accept the challenge and report back.

I'd be more inclined to answer your question above if you could explain how my answer would have an impact on the fact that Section 6.7.3 codifies abuse.

If 6.7.3 does codify abuse / unrighteous dominion, then DC 121 proclaims the authors, publishers and supporters of Handbook 1 have lost their priesthood. Isn't that correct? "Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man".

Those are God's words, not mine.

I know it is an inconvenient truth.

If I asked this question (which is somewhat of a loaded question):

“Can you explain to me why obedience to church leaders and not Jesus Christ is the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not?"

I know my bishop and stake president very well and imagine their response would be:

Obedience to church leaders is not the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not.

In reference to 6.7.3 the behavior that would begin the process of determining if an individual is apostate is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition is not something you can do by accident. The teachings of the church are very clear. One would have to take a stand on a subject repeatedly and deliberately in opposition to what the church teaches after being counseled by their priesthood leaders before they would be held accountable for their actions. A person can hold whatever personal opinions they want about many things in relation to the gospel and their priesthood leaders would never know. I’ve shared personal opinions and theories with my bishop in private conversations and he has his own opinions and theories. A person would have to be extremely prideful and looking for a fight to publicly preach things they know are opposed to the church’s doctrine. They would know it because their priesthood leaders would ask them to stop. If I taught one of my theories at church, and my bishop asked me to not do that again, I would apologize and follow his counsel. I wouldn’t try to argue with him and prove my theory is the truth. If it was accepted as truth and appropriate for public teaching in the church it would be found in church materials.

The impact of the answer to my question would be obvious. If President Russell M. Nelson truly holds the priesthood and its keys then we are in a good position, even if those to whom keys are delegated make mistakes and abuse their authority. If my bishop abused his authority in administering discipline in the ward that would have no effect on my stake president and his authority. Once the abuse was discovered by my stake president he would censure or remove my bishop. Then, the keys would be given to another priesthood holder to serve as bishop.

In my ward and stake this behavior is not “mainstream” and there have been very few excommunications that would fall under this category over the years.

ajax wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 1:30 pm It all boils down to the one and only doctrine left: FTP. If you don’t agree with or defer to them, your done. It doesn’t matter if you believe in Jesus and the BoM and seek to live it the best you can according to the dictates of your own conscience. There is no reasonable dialogue, divergence of opinion or general acceptance. Local control and autonomy and true common consent where the rights and privileges of membership are made manifest have been stomped out and replaced by centralized control and hierarchies. Put your white shirt on, get back in line and shut up. Oh, and when we enter the room, stand, and don’t sit back down until we do, and don’t stand back up until we do.. lol

Doctrine and Covenants section 124, verse 84, the Lord states:
“And with my servant Almon Babbitt, there are many things with which I am not pleased; behold, he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church.”

Yes

Centerline wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 9:37 pm If I asked this question (which is somewhat of a loaded question):

“Can you explain to me why obedience to church leaders and not Jesus Christ is the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not?"

I know my bishop and stake president very well and imagine their response would be:

Obedience to church leaders is not the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not.

In reference to 6.7.3 the behavior that would begin the process of determining if an individual is apostate is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition is not something you can do by accident. The teachings of the church are very clear. One would have to take a stand on a subject repeatedly and deliberately in opposition to what the church teaches after being counseled by their priesthood leaders before they would be held accountable for their actions. A person can hold whatever personal opinions they want about many things in relation to the gospel and their priesthood leaders would never know. I’ve shared personal opinions and theories with my bishop in private conversations and he has his own opinions and theories. A person would have to be extremely prideful and looking for a fight to publicly preach things they know are opposed to the church’s doctrine. They would know it because their priesthood leaders would ask them to stop. If I taught one of my theories at church, and my bishop asked me to not do that again, I would apologize and follow his counsel. I wouldn’t try to argue with him and prove my theory is the truth. If it was accepted as truth and appropriate for public teaching in the church it would be found in church materials.

The impact of the answer to my question would be obvious. If President Russell M. Nelson truly holds the priesthood and its keys then we are in a good position, even if those to whom keys are delegated make mistakes and abuse their authority. If my bishop abused his authority in administering discipline in the ward that would have no effect on my stake president and his authority. Once the abuse was discovered by my stake president he would censure or remove my bishop. Then, the keys would be given to another priesthood holder to serve as bishop.

In my ward and stake this behavior is not “mainstream” and there have been very few excommunications that would fall under this category over the years.

Centerline,

In your bishop's/ SP's mock response, they would deny the litmus test found in 6.7.3.

So let me continue the mock dialogue with them, after their initial reply of, "Obedience to church leaders is not the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not."

I would respectfully ask both of them:

“I know you personally believe that's not the litmus test and I agree with you. But let's read the section together."

(We then would read it together)

Continuing, I'd ask them both:

"Can you explain to me why it is written in this section that obedience to church leaders and not Jesus Christ is the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not?"

Them: "Hmm. Let me read it carefully..."

Me: "The section ONLY mentions obedience to Church leaders. You do acknowledge that there is no mention of a falling away from the gospel of our Lord? It ONLY mentions obedience to leadership. Agreed?"

Them: "Well, yes, upon review, that is indeed what it is saying."

Me: "Do you see how this opens the door for leaders to abuse their authority? After all, what's stopping them? They have the green light to use this section's definition to compel members to act a certain way."

Them: "Yes, I can see how that can happen. But we would not do that. What would you like us to do?"

Me: "I know you both to be good men, and I believe you wouldn't abuse your position of authority. But since almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion and try to control others, I would ask that this section be changed to be in conformance with the scriptures. Could you make the request, or with your approval, I'll make the request and mention our conversation and I'll cc you?"

*********** End Conversation ************

Of course, needless to say, the obvious question is, why does a First Presidency approved Handbook give the green light for leaders to abuse their authority?

That's the elephant in the room.

And let's be honest, if any member, including and especially a bishop or SP, was to take such a question and request to SLC, they would be laughed out of the Church Office Building, and maybe physically escorted by security. If the protester was a leader, they'd be released, and if news of being ignored went public, disciplinary actions would be commenced by the newly-installed leadership. And you could bet your bottom dollar that the new leaders would already have been vetted by SLC and ready and willing to do the will of SLC.

The way the process would go down is the person's request/ question/ concern would be ignored in a passive aggressive manner most likely. There would be a lengthy period where the member would try to elicit a response. But they'd be greeted by silence. Most members would drop it, getting the loud-and-clear message that the Church doesn't want to deal with it, and to just sit back down and be quiet like the rest of the obedient congregation. But for the member who cared enough about the issue, they would start talking publicly about it. They'd be asked to cease and desist by their bishop. Now you'd have a contest of wills.

Up to the point of going public, the unrighteous dominion by the Church had been expressed in a passive aggressive manner -- patronizing the member and then ignoring him, along with procrastination. Now, since it's no longer private, and the ante has been upped, the Church behavior goes from passive aggressive to flagrant abuse. True colors are shown, whereas before, there was plausible deniability in that the Church (the local leader) could say, "I'm waiting on a response. Haven't heard anything. I will follow up, hold tight..."

What I'm saying to you, Centerline, is that the "true colors" of the Church viewpoint towards anybody who disagrees with them is manifested in the abuse-institutionalizing Section 6.7.3. It's there RIGHT NOW. The green light to abuse is codified. It's standardized and has been instilled in leaders for generations.

To reiterate, I completely understand the corporate church's legal right to discipline anybody they want to based on whatever Gospel-opposing criteria they decide on. It's their club. We voluntarily contribute money to their enterprise, and as such, voluntarily subject ourselves to the corporation's rules. The truth I'm shining light on is that, according to the gospel, those rules can be "apostate", as is the case with Section 6.7.3, but the Church tries to act like such authoritarian rules are approved by the Lord and in fact the mind and will of the Lord. That's not true.

Do you now understand my position? Do you agree, or what do you disagree with?

One last point I wish to make...You said, "Repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition is not something you can do by accident. The teachings of the church are very clear."

Can it not equally be said that the Church (i.e., local leadership or SLC) "repeatedly acting in clear, deliberate opposition to the Gospel is not something it can do by accident"?

In other words, this very concern I'm highlighting -- Section 6.7.3 being authoritarian and truly apostate from the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- is that something that could have been composed by accident, and is it an accident it's still there?

It doesn't take a genius Scriptorian or wise sage to see the danger in the language.

caburnha wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 8:17 pm

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 11:31 am

caburnha wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:46 am

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:14 am

Agency is the the eternal principle. He has given up plenty of prophecies warning us!

The Church has hidden these revelations, lied about them and when they had to admit they existed because of the internet making is available to so many of the saints, they said those "Thus saith the Lord" revelations do not apply to us, because they were never submitted and voted upon in conference.

Funny thing, all those supposed revelations they have been having for the last 129 years, not one of them were a "Thus saith the Lord" revelations, and they have even been forgetting to vote on them in conference! When did you vote on the Gay policies, or the changes in the garments of the Holy Priesthood, the Endowment, even the deleting of a complete branch of Priesthood, the Seventies, and the list goes on and on!

In the latter days, if they will reject the truth, then the Messiah will send them strong delusions. He was not talking to the Catholic, who already have apostatized long ago, or the Jews who have rejected His fullness. Now you can add the Gentiles to that list. And the Father (Yah), as it says in 3 Nephi 16, shall have the Messiah take the Gospel away from them and give it back unto the House of Yisrael. After the Time of the Gentiles has come in. It has come in!!!

Why was the more spiritual and greater portion of the Book of Mormon kept from the Gentile Saints? The answer is in the Book of Mormon itself!

So how could the Messiah let this happen? It was foreseen from the beginning, how the Gentiles would reject the Fullness of the Gospel, they not being the Elect, they could not bear living such truths! It will be taken and given to those who are more worth of such divine light, and who will not reject it!

The Melchizedek Covenants, which IS the New and Everlasting Covenant, are the two covenants the you have made:

Law of Chastity (which included the Plurality of Wives)!
Law of Consecration (which is living the Order of Enoch)!

So how is the Latter-Day Saints and their Church doing in living the Fullness of the Gospel?

They have decided the G_d no longer desires us to keep our Covenants! Really??? Are they kidding? Where is that revelation? The First Manifesto was a sham for the government, and easily proven to not be a revelation. Just go and read the 1886 Revelation, the one the Church lied about for a century until they could no longer hid it. And Consecration, they have no revelation anywhere!

Oath breakers and Covenant breakers!!! Even all!

Or was the law of chastity broken much earlier when we sought after the same thing that 3 different wicked people sought after in the Book of Mormon?
Jacob 1:12-16
Mosiah 11:1-4
Ether 10:2-5

In Jacob, I hardly see LDS seeking excessive wives before the 1900's, save maybe only Brigham as one might make a case, however, he did not do it without the blessing of the Messiah and the Priesthood. And after a 110 plus years of actively fighting living the law of Celestial Plural Marriages (CPM), that is not the situation now. As for seeking Gold and Silver (verse 16), would be a very good observation of what LDS epitomized for the last 130 years. Wealth however can be for good or evil depending on what they do with such riches. The point here about seeking riches is, it is not part of the New and Everlasting Covenant, which is the subject matter at hand!

In Mosiah, Noah, a wicked king, did not keep the commandments of G_d, and he walk after the desires of his own heart, and had many wives and concubines. Living this principle, one must be called to live this principle for the glory and building of the kingdom of G_d. And Noah did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. He probably allowed killing of babies and the act of gays. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness. And Noah placed a heavy tax on everything (tax of one fifth part of all they possessed). But again I do not see this having anything to do with the N&EC (New and Everlasting Covenant), or the Initial LDS Church doing such things in the beginning (1800's), the leadership did not, not keep the commandments of G_d, causing the people to commit whoredoms, or all manner of wickedness, and then heavily tax the people, to support the GA's families!

In Ether, we find the same thing as Mosiah. Riplakish did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, (which was not given him by the Priesthood, for he did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord, which was the problem) but he did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne, yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings. Again, his unrighteousness as the leader was not the issue with the Prophet Joseph or his Apostle Brigham who followed him. They did not lay on men heavy taxes to build many great and spacious buildings (temples). They did what was right in the sight of G_d!

So your point here you are asking is that the early Saints: "was the law of chastity broken much earlier when we sought after the same thing that 3 different wicked people sought after in the Book of Mormon?" was not true.

They did keep the commandments, and did seek to do what was right in the sight of G_d. They did not lay heavy burdens upon the Saint through taxes, and have until much more recently not lead the people into whoredoms and allowed wickedness to be number with them.

Have you ever read the 1886 Revelation on the Commandment to the Saints and to the degree of the Messiah desire for the Saints to live Celestial Plural Marriage? It is the the direct command to us, not the history of the failures of others who did so without the command to do so!

Shalom

I don't want to derail this into a polygamy thread, but I'll just answer with my opinion. Funny how my opinion condemning an apostate practice, is considered apostate....

Yes I'm aware of the revelation of John Taylor found after his death. But I do question it's divine origin for several reasons.

As for the Book of Mormon scriptures I shared... I just find it nearly impossible to believe that after Mormon and Moroni saw our day, and saw our struggles and chastisements, that they would have deliberately included 3 separate accounts of the wickedness of multiple wives and concubines in three separate peoples that occured immediately after the death of a righteous ruler.... I believe a convincing case has made made that Joseph never taught nor practiced polygamy, but rather fought against its increasing influence and practice (within various levels of the church) until his death.

If Mormon say our day, and knew the Lord would require us to live a law of multiple wives, why would he include these three stories (Nephites after Nephi's death, King Noah, and King Riplakish) in such a way as to make it appear unrighteous and wicked? 3 cases, 3 witnesses, 3 warnings. How can we just ignore this, especially given what transpired in our history... Is it not reasonable to draw the conclusion that we were being warned that "that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." ?

I am not trying to make this thread about Celestial Marriage either... I was speaking about the Fullness of the Gospel, which also includes Consecration and a clear 1/3 of the D&C addresses living that. But besides that point, it is funny how the real apostasy of Gentiles Saints, that is clearly defined in the Scriptures, is white washed by labeling it an Apostate Practice!

Questioning a Revelation (that has been attested to have been written in John Taylor's own handwriting), that is a "Thus saith a Lord" revelation is not binding on the Saints, and the blatant lying of its assistance is not enough evidence of a conspiracy by the Brethren over the years to change the doctrine of the kingdom, without divine consent owing to the lack of any future real revelations proves the point (not one other such revelation in 129/130 years). When Joseph Smith ask the Messiah, when will you come, and He reluctantly answered, 'If you live to be 85 years old, I will come, but do not ask me any more concerning this'. This too, revealed how different it would have been "IF" Joseph had lived to 1890. What was the Messiah revealing here? That Joseph would have done something very different than what the Brethren did in 1890, and the Messiah would have had to come out of His hiding place and fight the battles of the Church. What was the issue in 1890? The New and Everlasting Covenant! The People Party, that voted as a block, they saw it as unconstitutional, the Economic Order of Enoch (United Orders) and the Principle of Plural Celestial Marriage. But the Church making concessions with the world, they broke the Covenant, manifestations of the Spirit dried up like water being poured out upon hot desert sand, and the lack of any further Revelation proving it. The signs that were found among the Lamenites leading up to 1890, the Ghost Dancing, and Little Big Horn who have been vastly different, if the Gentile Saints had not fallen down! I lament over this, knowing that that was what was prophesied, that the possibility of Zion would be lost for a few more generations. That the Fullness of the Times of the Gentiles must come in, for the Gospel to eventually go unto the House of Yisrael. This downward spiral started over a century ago and has only got more profound and clearer until now, so many people can see it, that it is affecting their numbers, even by life long members who have started to question the Church's history and their current doings.

To say that there is no parallel in living the New and Everlasting Covenant wrong (without G_d's permission or for the wrong reasons) that could bring the cursings of G_d upon a people, IS the lesson of the Book of Mormon, from cover to cover, not just three examples of living only one half of that Covenant. I am sorry for you that you do not see what I see so clearly, I will pray for you to have your heart soften, that if it is Father's will, and your birthright to see such, that it may be revealed unto you. But until that day, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Topcat,
You keep asking why is it written in this section that obedience to church leaders and not Jesus Christ is the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not?

No where is it written you must be obedient or display obedience to church leaders. That is your interpretation of the words used in the policy. No where in the policy are the words “demand” or “obedience” ever used. So why do you keep using the word obedience?

The word used in the policy is “opposition”. They are not demanding for you to give them your obedience. They are asking you to stop opposing them in a clear, deliberate, and public manner in regards to church and doctrinal matters.

How do you not understand how this would be a reasonable request given by the leaders of any organization, to a member of their organization, who is opposing the methods everyone in the organization has agreed to abide by to accomplish their purposes.

If you acted this way as a member of any other organization in life they would ask you to leave the organization. Especially if the opposition was in a clear, deliberate, and public manner.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 12:00 pm Topcat,
You keep asking why is it written in this section that obedience to church leaders and not Jesus Christ is the litmus test as to whether a member is deemed apostate or not?

No where is it written you must be obedient or display obedience to church leaders. That is your interpretation of the words used in the policy. No where in the policy are the words “demand” or “obedience” ever used. So why do you keep using the word obedience?

The word used in the policy is “opposition”. They are not demanding for you to give them your obedience. They are asking you to stop opposing them in a clear, deliberate, and public manner in regards to church and doctrinal matters.

How do you not understand how this would be a reasonable request given by the leaders of any organization, to a member of their organization, who is opposing the methods everyone in the organization has agreed to abide by to accomplish their purposes.

If you acted this way as a member of any other organization in life they would ask you to leave the organization. Especially if the opposition was in a clear, deliberate, and public manner.

Centerline,

What is absence of opposition?

Compliance. Obedience. Submission.

So if they don't want opposition, they want obedience.

I will continue to believe you are sincere.

These words are not difficult. The word 'opposition' is not difficult to understand. If you don't want opposition, you want obedience.

So I am one hundred percent accurate in saying they want obedience to their authority.

Can you not bring yourself to acknowledge or admit this?

Section 6.7.3 defines apostasy as:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Thus, being in opposition TO THE LEADERS is the criteria. If you are not opposed, but submit TO THE LEADERS, then they do not consider you apostate.

It's all very literal. No hard words are being used. There is no way to misinterpret this. All you can do is insist that the words don't mean what they say. That is called gaslighting. Will you stop trying to gaslight me?

I explained why you are having trouble with this. Yes, let me come out and say it, there is great and excruciating pain associated with admitting the fact that 6.7.3 is devilish. The implications are enormous. Those implications are exceedingly painful. I understand that you want to avoid the pain.

I feel for you. I felt the same way. What a crushing realization to consider the implications. I denied it for years, preferring to avoid the pain and live in my blissful state of alternate reality.

As to your other point referring to understanding how any organization's leaders don't have to tolerate opposition, I've already addressed this multiple times. Please review above. The quick review is I do understand completely and made the case even better than you have, that the church has every legal right as a corporation or organization to set up whatever bylaws or criteria for membership it wants to. OF COURSE!! No argument from me. I concur!

But I explained that this is not just any other run-of-the-mill organization, didn't I? The Church claims to speak for Jesus and so the standard is higher, a lot higher than the corrupt legalese of the telestial world.

Because this organization claims to represent Jesus Christ and to speak his mind and will, it is quite unique (though similar to the Catholics). And so, as such, it must necessarily be held to the standard of the Gospel. And we know, YOU know, that the Lord does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. The Lord condemns very strongly any degree of compulsion on the souls of the children of men (see DC 121 again). And Section 6.7.3 has the audacity to codify authoritarianism for all the world to see. Oh, wait a second, it's a secret Handbook. And THAT should tell you something as well.

The Church could issue a statement/ press release like this (but they would never do it):

"We wish to communicate to the members that the Church is a corporation. As such, its corporate charter is subject to the laws of the land, and subject to all types of litigation. We have Handbooks to stay in compliance with the laws of the land. Please understand that these rules and guidelines are to protect the Church and to keep its tax exempt status. This means that there will be conflicts between the corporation's rules, policies, actions, etc. and the Gospel. This is unavoidable. We, your leaders, will do our level best to protect the corporation and its business interests from harm. We are human, so we may make errors. We thank you for your support, sustaining vote, and prayers."

This would be an honest declaration. But you'll never hear this. Why?

Because the leaders now have a conflict of interest: Serve God, or serve Mammon!

And thus the members would have not just a right, but a DUTY to ask questions and hold them accountable. Agreed, Centerline?

Now that you have more context with the curtains being pulled back for you, perhaps you can appreciate this dialogue that we're having. Now you can see why 6.7.3 was written the way it is.

If a member attempts to politely, professionally, humbly, and sincerely approach the leadership with a potential "conflict of interest", meaning some way in which the leadership or Handbook or Church is doing something sideways or opposed to the Gospel, Babylonian leaders would obviously need a way to shut the member up. That's what 6.7.3 is all about. It's to shut up the members, and to create a culture of fear so others don't stand up and say something.