LDS Freedom Forum

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 4:53 pm

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, I think I am in 100% agreement with everything you are saying. I wish I could articulate things so well.

Consider this: The central matter of the creation of man was to give him agency and this ALONE necessitated a savior. NOBODY is to be compelled to Heaven. One of the MOST BASIC problems with humanity is its insolence in recognizing, acknowledging, and respecting agency - particularly for those holding the power in a situation, maybe being a little drunk on it and supposing their possession of power is providential, entitled.

It's no wonder that so many people have so much trouble getting beyond telestial notions of compulsion, even allowing themselves to consider what agency is all about, as this is the BASIC ISSUE humanity is challenged with. Perhaps this is the BASIC TEST of mortality - to grow to accommodate and HONOR agency, as it's a heavenly principle and one who doesn't respect it cannot progress, really. It's a fundamental in our existence.

When we encounter obstinate insolence from people who just won't recognize and respect agency, and make it a guiding principle, what we are combating is the MOST BASIC tendency in man. Look at the U.S. now. It's split down the middle over the matter of agency. Agency is THE ISSUE, all over the world, all the time. It's humanity's big trial and challenge. Christ was killed because his agency was not permitted by men. Man temporally killed GOD because man wouldn't afford GOD his agency, for Pete's sake. It is THE ISSUE in our existence and God's creation.

Chip wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 12:58 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 4:53 pm

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, I think I am in 100% agreement with everything you are saying. I wish I could articulate things so well.

Consider this: The central matter of the creation of man was to give him agency and this ALONE necessitated a savior. NOBODY is to be compelled to Heaven. One of the MOST BASIC problems with humanity is its insolence in recognizing, acknowledging, and respecting agency - particularly for those holding the power in a situation, maybe being a little drunk on it and supposing their possession of power is providential, entitled.

It's no wonder that so many people have so much trouble getting beyond telestial notions of compulsion, even allowing themselves to consider what agency is all about, as this is the BASIC ISSUE humanity is challenged with. Perhaps this is the BASIC TEST of mortality - to grow to accommodate and HONOR agency, as it's a heavenly principle and one who doesn't respect it cannot progress, really. It's a fundamental in our existence.

When we encounter obstinate insolence from people who just won't recognize and respect agency, and make it a guiding principle, what we are combating is the MOST BASIC tendency in man. Look at the U.S. now. It's split down the middle over the matter of agency. Agency is THE ISSUE, all over the world, all the time. It's humanity's big trial and challenge. Christ was killed because his agency was not permitted by men. Man temporally killed GOD because man wouldn't afford GOD his agency, for Pete's sake. It is THE ISSUE in our existence and God's creation.

Amen and Amen.

The spirit rifled through me several times as I read your words. With each pass the spirit was testifying, THIS IS TRUE!

Glory to God, and thanks to Him and you for testifying of truth today.

Thank you!

Men suppose it's better to coagulate with other men, where respect of agency will suffer due to the demands of hierarchy, rather than stand alone for the TRUTH and serve God. Better to integrate as a model member of THE CLUB, they suppose, and act in whatever way is club-sanctioned, so this life's temporal needs can more easily be pursued without crisis of conscience and nagging loneliness.

This quote is really significant:

I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone. - Robin Williams

Topcat,

What is the absence of opposition?

Peace, harmony, love

These are all good things to have in your own home. The only reason a person would take the negative approach to the lack of opposition is if they felt those they were opposing were their enemy. Then, they would be unwilling to surrender and would continue to fight back. They would fight back in a clear, deliberate, and public fashion. Publicly seeking allies in their fight to oppose their enemies.

Your hypothetical statement by the church is a good statement and to a certain degree, not with all of the wording but with the spirit it is trying to convey, I would agree with it and believe this is how the leaders of the church are already approaching the situation. Whether they release that statement makes no difference to me because I believe this is how they are forced to operate in this world.

So the real question is are they your enemy or not? For whatever reason the mantle of leadership is on their head and not mine or yours. Like I said before, I know my bishop and stake president very well and they are good men. They do not see any of those whom they lead as their enemy. I have empathy for their position and will do my best to work with them, not only to bring peace and harmony to our fold, but to accomplish our righteous purposes.

It is not abuse to censure or discipline those in your home who cause discord through clear, deliberate, and public opposition. If one of my children did this in my home I would love them and discipline them when appropriate and necessary. Their discord and opposition would be harmful to the other children in the home. They might feel as if I am abusing my authority and exercising unrighteous dominion. I would be very careful and constantly assess my words and actions; being fully aware of the priesthood I hold and how it should be used. But, with love in my heart I would issue discipline in a responsible manner. For the protection of the other children and harmony of the family. Hopefully, with the result of bringing them back into a state of peace and harmony with those they live with. Where we could all work together to strengthen our family and accomplish our righteous purposes.

This is how I see things in the church. I will continue to forgive others, even my leaders, because at the time I may not understand their actions. They are not my enemy and I have nothing to gain by fighting to oppose them and their authority to lead.

One final question.

Do you believe President Russell M. Nelson holds the holy priesthood and the keys of his office, therefore, the God given authority to govern His church at this time?

I believe he does. If you do not believe this we have a fundamental difference in belief on this matter.

I appreciate your responses, they make me think, and consider my position. Even though we continue to be in disagreement, thanks.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:16 am You make a really good analogy here, but this puts these leaders in a VERY convenient position. They are nearly completely inaccessible by the average member to the point that the people who should desire to speak with them about things they teach will never be able to speak with them, therefore ensuring that decades and generations pass where the average member cannot discuss Doctrine with the leaders.

To summarize your position.

* I can't do it the right way.
* It's hard.
* The importance I ascribe to it means that the ends justify the means.
* Ascribe more faults for the above (doubling down...)

This looks like rationalization to me. If it really is that important to you, then find a way to do it right. Complaining about the lack of a red carpet method is just more backbiting.

BackBlast wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 4:17 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:16 am You make a really good analogy here, but this puts these leaders in a VERY convenient position. They are nearly completely inaccessible by the average member to the point that the people who should desire to speak with them about things they teach will never be able to speak with them, therefore ensuring that decades and generations pass where the average member cannot discuss Doctrine with the leaders.

To summarize your position.

* I can't do it the right way.
* It's hard.
* The importance I ascribe to it means that the ends justify the means.
* Ascribe more faults for the above (doubling down...)

This looks like rationalization to me. If it really is that important to you, then find a way to do it right. Complaining about the lack of a red carpet method is just more backbiting.

Okay. Appreciate the feedback.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 2:42 pm Topcat,

What is the absence of opposition?

Peace, harmony, love

These are all good things to have in your own home. The only reason a person would take the negative approach to the lack of opposition is if they felt those they were opposing were their enemy. Then, they would be unwilling to surrender and would continue to fight back. They would fight back in a clear, deliberate, and public fashion. Publicly seeking allies in their fight to oppose their enemies.

Your hypothetical statement by the church is a good statement and to a certain degree, not with all of the wording but with the spirit it is trying to convey, I would agree with it and believe this is how the leaders of the church are already approaching the situation. Whether they release that statement makes no difference to me because I believe this is how they are forced to operate in this world.

So the real question is are they your enemy or not? For whatever reason the mantle of leadership is on their head and not mine or yours. Like I said before, I know my bishop and stake president very well and they are good men. They do not see any of those whom they lead as their enemy. I have empathy for their position and will do my best to work with them, not only to bring peace and harmony to our fold, but to accomplish our righteous purposes.

It is not abuse to censure or discipline those in your home who cause discord through clear, deliberate, and public opposition. If one of my children did this in my home I would love them and discipline them when appropriate and necessary. Their discord and opposition would be harmful to the other children in the home. They might feel as if I am abusing my authority and exercising unrighteous dominion. I would be very careful and constantly assess my words and actions; being fully aware of the priesthood I hold and how it should be used. But, with love in my heart I would issue discipline in a responsible manner. For the protection of the other children and harmony of the family. Hopefully, with the result of bringing them back into a state of peace and harmony with those they live with. Where we could all work together to strengthen our family and accomplish our righteous purposes.

This is how I see things in the church. I will continue to forgive others, even my leaders, because at the time I may not understand their actions. They are not my enemy and I have nothing to gain by fighting to oppose them and their authority to lead.

One final question.

Do you believe President Russell M. Nelson holds the holy priesthood and the keys of his office, therefore, the God given authority to govern His church at this time?

I believe he does. If you do not believe this we have a fundamental difference in belief on this matter.

I appreciate your responses, they make me think, and consider my position. Even though we continue to be in disagreement, thanks.

Centerline,

Our conversation is a case of facts v. belief. And facts always lose. Same is the case with Truth v. Belief. Belief ALWAYS wins.

If we were to suspend all belief and judgment and just look at the facts, that would be a good place to start, but the problem is suspending belief. The process of separating the facts from everything else is called Discovery, I do believe. The problem is that you and I never made it past Discovery because belief has inserted itself into the mix, and there is no place for belief in Discovery.

Evidence that belief has been suspended is when both parties acknowledge the facts. That means making concessions and agreeing with reality. The absence of concessions and acknowledgment of facts is evidence that UNBELIEF is winning the day.

In a last-ditch effort to arrive at an acknowledgment of the facts, I submit this dialogue, for easy reading.

SP = stake president; AA = area authority

A sincere SP is expressing his concern about Section 6.7.3 to his AA with the concern being that the definition of "apostasy" in the section refers to members who oppose the Church or its leaders, with no reference whatsoever to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. His concern is that this Section institutionalizes abuse of authority.

For reference, here is the first part of the section (the rest I've quoted in an earlier comment): "As used here, apostasy refers to members who: 1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders."

SP to the AA: "Do you agree that there is no reference in Section 6.7.3 to opposition to the Gospel?"

AA: "Yes, I see there is no reference to the Gospel."

SP: "Who or what does the section say the member must be opposing to be found apostate?"

AA: "It says clearly that a member is considered "apostate" if he opposes the Church or his leaders"

SP: "And how must he oppose the leader?"

AA: "It clearly says the member must oppose the leader by "repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate opposition?"

SP: "According to the actual wording of Section 6.7.3, is it possible that the leader could be in clear and open opposition to the Savior's gospel, AND the member be in 100% harmony with the Gospel?"

AA: "That is possible."

SP: "In such a case, could the righteous member be found "apostate" by the apostate leader by this Section's definition, and cast out of the Church?"

AA: "Yes, that is entirely possible."

SP: "How does this Section make it possible for the actual apostate leader to judge the righteous member an "apostate"?"

AA: "Because the Section defines apostasy as being opposed to the leader."

SP: "Because the phrasing defines apostasy as being opposed to the leader and not to Christ, could a leader think he has the consent of the Handbook (and his higher-ups) to exercise control on the member without even one thought given to the principles of the Gospel?"

AA: "Yes"

SP: "Does Section 6.7.3 encourage the leadership in even the slightest manner to use the Gospel of Jesus Christ to judge the behavior of the member, and if there is such an encouragement, can you quote it?"

AA: "I find no encouragement in this Section to use the Gospel as a judge of whether the member is apostate or not."

SP: "Is there no criteria given to judge?"

AA: "Yes there is criteria."

SP: "Is the criteria specific and easy to understand?"

AA: "Yes."

SP: "Please share the specific criteria by quoting the Section."

AA: "The Section says that members who "repeatedly act in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to...its leaders" are apostate. It's very clear."

SP: "Again, they must oppose the leaders and NOT Jesus Christ or His gospel, is that correct?"

AA: "Yes."

*** END CONVERSATION ***

The conversation could go on to ask even more questions. I just want to give the facts, the actual language of the Section, some stage time, lest they are overlooked.

No matter how you try to gaslight, the facts are that opposition to leaders is deemed apostate. A leader will deem a person NOT apostate if they stop opposing the leader, or if the conflict ceases and, to use your words, "peace and harmony" return because opposition to the leader vanishes.

Remember, "there is opposition in all things." Why does opposition exist in the case of judging somebody apostate? Because there is a conflict. Conflict between what?

Section clear is about setting up the rules for opposition. Opposition exists when a member opposes the leader.

Can there be a legitimate reason to oppose a leader? Of course there could be. Let's say the leader is abusing his authority and trying to control somebody.... that would be a legitimate reason. Do you agree? I'd like to assume you would agree. This is where you can acknowledge there is a legitimate case of opposing a leader. And I recall you did acknowledge that before when you said that leader's leader would censure him as needed.

What I am saying is that this very Section (which is approved by leadership) GRANTS PERMISSION to leaders to abuse their authority. It ENCOURAGES abuse.

Sounds like an outrageous claim. But it's true. The language is very clear. If you oppose leaders, you are considered apostate.

That's perfectly fine for ANY organization or corporation to do this, but not for an organization that claims to have leaders who speak the mind and will of God.

In conclusion I want to respond to your words. You said:

What is the absence of opposition?

Peace, harmony, love

These are all good things to have in your own home. The only reason a person would take the negative approach to the lack of opposition is if they felt those they were opposing were their enemy.

A bully, a true authoritarian, and an utterly selfish and self-centered person would heartily agree with you. The bully thinks and truly is sincere in his belief that he wants peace, harmony, and love with his subjects. Obey ME so I can feel peace! The abusive cop who demands, "Stop resisting, stop resisting" wants peace. The abusive husband often gets peace from his battered wife because she complies with her husband's orders. The petty tyrant boss at work often enjoys "peace" in the office because his subordinates don't want to ruffle his feathers. How about this one, all of Europe in the late 1930's was thrilled to have peace with Hitler's Germany. The formula to peace with him? Concession after concession. The father who beats his kids often has peace. How? His kids submit. The father would say, "Don't we have peace, harmony, and love here!" Giddianhi in 3 Nephi 3:8 sought peace. Said he boldly to Lachoneus:

And behold, I swear unto you, if ye will [cease opposing us], with an oath, [we shall have peace, harmony and love with you!];

Christ's end goal isn't peace. It's obedience to truth and to God. "I came not to send peace, but a sword." He doesn't want war. He's saying that life's test is to prove us in all things to see if we will do all the He commands us (Abr 3). Obedience TO GOD is the great test and reason we are here. It's not about peace! Peace is the by-product of obedience to God, and I mean internal peace. But often obedience to God creates conflict and war because there are people who reject God and the principles of righteousness.

Our purpose here on earth is not about peace. I think you are just trying to defend Section 6.7.3, and trying to interpret it to fit your belief that the leaders couldn't be intentionally institutionalizing abuse of authority, when denying that is like denying water is wet. Yes, of course, they have a Babylonian legal right to coerce members however they choose. It's their corporation. No argument. That's not question question. The question is whether Christ would compel people others. We know He doesn't compel us. And He spells out (in DC 121) the consequences of trying to compel people to do something in any degree of unrighteousness; consequences which include the forfeiture of priesthood, or the "authority of that man."

We are here to be obedient TO GOD. Section 6.7.3 holds up "obedience to men" as a virtue that we should seek. This is evil, and is a misguided standard, to say the very least. It commands obedience to man.

You said:

They would fight back in a clear, deliberate, and public fashion. Publicly seeking allies in their fight to oppose their enemies.

Martin Luther fought back, using truth as his weapon. Likewise, all the Christians in Jesus day "fought back" against their, as you label them, "enemies". Of course, they were heavily persecuted and most disciples were murdered.

You said:

Your hypothetical statement by the church is a good statement and to a certain degree, not with all of the wording but with the spirit it is trying to convey, I would agree with it and believe this is how the leaders of the church are already approaching the situation. Whether they release that statement makes no difference to me because I believe this is how they are forced to operate in this world.

Yes, I agree the leaders now are approaching "the situation" by running the corporation as a corporation, SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF BABYLON. There's a conflict, a choice: God or Mammon. And you here are actually certifying that the apostles "are forced to operate" the Church subject to Babylon. I assume you'll walk back your statement since you just uttered an "apostate" sentence according to your institutional definition of apostasy! Lol.

Where I disagree with you is that they are not and have not ever been FORCED to operate that way. They had and have a choice. There was never a need to incorporate, thus subjecting the corporate charter to the state. Yes, BILLIONS of dollars wouldn't have been made, and massive assets of all kinds would not have been accumulated, but that's not our purpose on earth, is it? Your very own admission is authentic and accurate.

You said:

So the real question is are they your enemy or not?

This is a digression. A tangent. But if you want to define an enemy, I like how Mormon said it to his son, "we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness, and rest our souls in the kingdom of God."

Topcat,

The only object fact in this discussion is the actual wording of 6.7.3 and everything else is our subjective opinion of what it means and the consequences thereof.

The purpose of the policy is to protect the church and its members from individuals within the church who act in clear, deliberate, and open public opposition to the church. The purpose of this policy is not to protect members of the church from leaders who abuse their authority by forcing members to obey them in some manner.

Your argument seems to be the wording of the policy would allow leaders to abuse members by forcing obedience. Fortunately, policy is nothing more than a general guideline. Do you believe the church and it’s leaders created the policy so they can abuse members by forcing them to obey them in all things? The most you can say is some misguided leader would attempt to justify there abuse of a member through the use of this policy. Fortunately, there are checks and balances. Especially during the process of receiving significant church discipline.

How come in all of your hypothetical discussions the member is being punished and forced to obey for doing nothing wrong by a wicked leader. Wouldn’t it be more likely the member is teaching and preaching in a clear, deliberate, and open manner beliefs that are in opposition to what we believe? If that was the case the church would need a policy like 6.7.3 to protect itself.

Of course, you believe many other things that influences your perception of the purpose and consequences of the policy and the same can be said for me. The focus of the discussion was a disagreement over your opinion that 6.7.3 demands our obedience to our leaders. That is clearly false because no where in 6.7.3 does it mention obedience. It clearly states that apostate behavior is behavior where a member is acting in clear, deliberate, and open opposition to the church and its leaders.

IMO if you have to ask someone else if you are apostate or anti you already know that you are.
IMO if you have anything negative to say about the restored gospel then you either do not know it is true, do not want to know if it is true, do not care if it is true, have never really tried to find out if it is true, are not willing to make the effort to find out if it is true, are afraid to make the effort to find out if it is true, have not faith enough to make the effort to find out if it is true, do not know how to go about finding out it is true, have a gripe against someone and impute it to the church, saw the imperfection of someone who presided and were certain you should be presiding, have found that you cannot live the gospel and have given up trying, or you know that the church is true and have decided to follow satan and do all you can to serve him and destroy as many lives as you can in the process.
Once you go anti, eventually you hate the scriptures, prophets, God and anything connected with the restored truth or truth of any kind since they are all interconnected and try as you may the puzzle wins. You may not have progressed to that point yet, but that is where the path eventually leads. It is a dark trail and no one on it is happy despite lies to the contrary.

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 7:10 am

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


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.

I highly respect your opinion KoZ. We do agree on alot. Just not this .. But, if I'm wrong on polygamy, I will certainly plead for the Lord's forgiveness and accept its practice if ever required of me... If this is the case, I would expect some measure of mercy to be shown to myself and many others who have a hard time accepting, in good conscience, that there exists a celestial order of polygamy (that was required of us to establish Zion in the 1800s) when the Keystone of our religion speaks so clearly and prophetically against it (in my honest view), and when Joseph Smith and his family (by all contemporary accounts I can find) fought so consistently against it.

I'm not just experiencing confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance or whatever Shadow will accuse me of.... I accepted the idea that polygamy was of God my entire adult life... That WAS my confirmation bias.. That is, until I honestly and humbly and prayerfully allowed myself be open to other considerations.

You mention that the 3 examples I used are merely examples of people who lived the N&E covenant wrongly... If this were the case, then where are the examples of those who lived it correctly? Are you making a case that Alma's converts, the children of Ammon, or the Nephites after Christ's coming began living a righteous form of polygamy?

The New and Everlasting Covenant was (and is) most definitely a thing. And it is a covenant. And we both agree it appears to have been broken... But the manner in which the principle of multiple wives managed to become a major component of God's New and Everlasting Covenant in the final dispensation, I believe is very very suspect.

As for "thus saith the Lord" revelations drying up... For me its evident that this was already occuring towards the end of Joseph's life, and all but ended with his death.

I have to accept the POSSIBILITY that polygamy may have occurred in our history due to man's tendencies to abuse authority, seek after lusts, follow the pride of their hearts, and to fall from grace. This was the cause of multiple wives and concubines at least 3 separate times in the Book of Mormon. And the tendencies of God's people to have these flaws was warned of all through the book.

Is it not possible that the Book of Mormon gave the Gentile church a clear warning of the way God's people have justified the practice of multiple wives in the past - and would justify its practice in the future? Mormon saw our day and tailor made the compilation for us... If Celestial plural marriage is just and true, and was to be required of us in the last days, then why would Mormon make this so confusing for us?

p.s. I do love the Walker Lake story of Christ's visit to the humble descendants of Joseph... We can certainly agree that this event was a sure indicator of the state of the Ephraimite Gentile church.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 12th, 2019, 10:55 pm IMO if you have to ask someone else if you are apostate or anti you already know that you are.
IMO if you have anything negative to say about the restored gospel then you either do not know it is true, do not want to know if it is true, do not care if it is true, have never really tried to find out if it is true, are not willing to make the effort to find out if it is true, are afraid to make the effort to find out if it is true, have not faith enough to make the effort to find out if it is true, do not know how to go about finding out it is true, have a gripe against someone and impute it to the church, saw the imperfection of someone who presided and were certain you should be presiding, have found that you cannot live the gospel and have given up trying, or you know that the church is true and have decided to follow satan and do all you can to serve him and destroy as many lives as you can in the process.
Once you go anti, eventually you hate the scriptures, prophets, God and anything connected with the restored truth or truth of any kind since they are all interconnected and try as you may the puzzle wins. You may not have progressed to that point yet, but that is where the path eventually leads. It is a dark trail and no one on it is happy despite lies to the contrary.

My friend, a person can FULLY and lovingly embrace the restored Gospel while having serious questions with today's church.

Such a person may simply be pointing to all the warnings and chastisements regarding the Gentiles in the Book of Mormon and saying, "Um, guys, uhhh, I think this might be talking about us..."

Can you FULLY embrace the restored Gospel if you no longer believe Jesus Christ is leading His church, and the keys of the kingdom are present, and are used to govern at this time? Because if you didn’t believe that it seems like you would be waiting for some other restored Gospel.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:11 am Can you FULLY embrace the restored Gospel if you no longer believe Jesus Christ is leading His church, and the keys of the kingdom are present, and are used to govern at this time? Because if you didn’t believe that it seems like you would be waiting for some other restored Gospel.

Refer to my post from a few minutes ago ^^

Well, I guess it’s pretty definitive then, here in the definitive Anti-Mormon thread.

Maybe in the other restored gospel those who have the keys of the kingdom will just listen to you and your interpretation of the scriptures.

Hypothetically speaking. If you went to church this Sunday and were asked to meet in the bishop’s office. You walk in the office and President Russell M. Nelson is sitting there. Would you say to him, “Um, guys, I think this might be talking about us....” Then, what would you say or do if he told you, “I’m sorry, that is an incorrect interpretation of the scriptures and the current status of the Kingdom of a God on earth”.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:34 am Well, I guess it’s pretty definitive then, here in the definitive Anti-Mormon thread.

Maybe in the other restored gospel those who have the keys of the kingdom will just listen to you and your interpretation of the scriptures.

Hypothetically speaking. If you went to church this Sunday and were asked to meet in the bishop’s office. You walk in the office and President Russell M. Nelson is sitting there. Would you say to him, “Um, guys, I think this might be talking about us....” Then, what would you say or do if he told you, “I’m sorry, that is an incorrect interpretation of the scriptures and the current status of the Kingdom of a God on earth”.

Elder Perry once said as much

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:34 am Well, I guess it’s pretty definitive then, here in the definitive Anti-Mormon thread.

Maybe in the other restored gospel those who have the keys of the kingdom will just listen to you and your interpretation of the scriptures.

Hypothetically speaking. If you went to church this Sunday and were asked to meet in the bishop’s office. You walk in the office and President Russell M. Nelson is sitting there. Would you say to him, “Um, guys, I think this might be talking about us....” Then, what would you say or do if he told you, “I’m sorry, that is an incorrect interpretation of the scriptures and the current status of the Kingdom of a God on earth”.

I'm not sure if I'd say all that because I'm not sure I'm ready to forfeit my membership... I don't KNOW that it's all "talking about us" but I know I have serious valid concerns with our current interpretation of ourselves.

We might have the keys. But that doesn't guarantee we are putting them in the gate, turning them, and walking through it and onto the path.
Jesus is still steering the ship, but what if we lost the rudder and forgot to put up the sails?

I sincerely empathize with your situation even though I have no concerns whatsoever at this time. I wasn’t willing to have faith in God or Jesus Christ till I was about 30 years old, so I know what it is like to have concerns and doubts.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:30 am I sincerely empathize with your situation even though I have no concerns whatsoever at this time. I wasn’t willing to have faith in God or Jesus Christ till I was about 30 years old, so I know what it is like to have concerns and doubts.

I assure you that my faith in Jesus Christ and the restoration are rock solid. What we have here are two different understandings of last days prophecy, and how the restoration of the Gospel fits into it all. I just made a post on this in "Gospel Discussions." Feel free to weigh in.

caburnha wrote: ↑April 12th, 2019, 11:26 pm

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 7:10 am

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

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

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.

I highly respect your opinion KoZ. We do agree on alot. Just not this .. But, if I'm wrong on polygamy, I will certainly plead for the Lord's forgiveness and accept its practice if ever required of me... If this is the case, I would expect some measure of mercy to be shown to myself and many others who have a hard time accepting, in good conscience, that there exists a celestial order of polygamy (that was required of us to establish Zion in the 1800s) when the Keystone of our religion speaks so clearly and prophetically against it (in my honest view), and when Joseph Smith and his family (by all contemporary accounts I can find) fought so consistently against it.

I'm not just experiencing confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance or whatever Shadow will accuse me of.... I accepted the idea that polygamy was of God my entire adult life... That WAS my confirmation bias.. That is, until I honestly and humbly and prayerfully allowed myself be open to other considerations.

You mention that the 3 examples I used are merely examples of people who lived the N&E covenant wrongly... If this were the case, then where are the examples of those who lived it correctly? Are you making a case that Alma's converts, the children of Ammon, or the Nephites after Christ's coming began living a righteous form of polygamy?

The New and Everlasting Covenant was (and is) most definitely a thing. And it is a covenant. And we both agree it appears to have been broken... But the manner in which the principle of multiple wives managed to become a major component of God's New and Everlasting Covenant in the final dispensation, I believe is very very suspect.

As for "thus saith the Lord" revelations drying up... For me its evident that this was already occuring towards the end of Joseph's life, and all but ended with his death.

I have to accept the POSSIBILITY that polygamy may have occurred in our history due to man's tendencies to abuse authority, seek after lusts, follow the pride of their hearts, and to fall from grace. This was the cause of multiple wives and concubines at least 3 separate times in the Book of Mormon. And the tendencies of God's people to have these flaws was warned of all through the book.

Is it not possible that the Book of Mormon gave the Gentile church a clear warning of the way God's people have justified the practice of multiple wives in the past - and would justify its practice in the future? Mormon saw our day and tailor made the compilation for us... If Celestial plural marriage is just and true, and was to be required of us in the last days, then why would Mormon make this so confusing for us?

p.s. I do love the Walker Lake story of Christ's visit to the humble descendants of Joseph... We can certainly agree that this event was a sure indicator of the state of the Ephraimite Gentile church.

I believe in the Eight Estate of Probation and Progression. The Path of Eternal Progression is much longer then most people believe. The Principle of Plural Wives is one where only the very Elect are required to live such here. If you were to look into the Scripture and Oral Traditions, there is not one good example of how to live this principle here in this realm, not even the Messiah's wives could lived it without some contention. We still worship "the G_d of Abraham, and of Issac, and of Jacob", all who had multiple wives, and the 12 Tribes of Yisrael would not have ever been able to reach those numbers without Jacob having multiple wives.

So who is required to live this Principle specifically? Dispensation Presidencies, and we see the two main Kings of Yisrael did with many more wives then most, but they both were eventually found unworthy and fall short of Glory. It is a test that comes as a two edge sword, much like the Abrahamic test!

As for Revelations disappearing, I agree with you. I have listed how the early Saints had dozens and dozens of Revelations a year up unto 1836, and the it declined very quickly unto less then ten revelations per year were received in 1838, where the Messiah said they were under condemnation.

I thank you for your kind words. I once sound like a lone person speaking into the face of a strong wind... but of lately, I have been so amazed that so many people eyes and hearts have began to be open. It is not just my words, by no means, but it is the hand of the Messiah, who is sifting the Elect out, or preparing them for a new work, when it dawns.

Shalom Shalom

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 3:04 am

caburnha wrote: ↑April 12th, 2019, 11:26 pm

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑April 11th, 2019, 7:10 am

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


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.

I highly respect your opinion KoZ. We do agree on alot. Just not this .. But, if I'm wrong on polygamy, I will certainly plead for the Lord's forgiveness and accept its practice if ever required of me... If this is the case, I would expect some measure of mercy to be shown to myself and many others who have a hard time accepting, in good conscience, that there exists a celestial order of polygamy (that was required of us to establish Zion in the 1800s) when the Keystone of our religion speaks so clearly and prophetically against it (in my honest view), and when Joseph Smith and his family (by all contemporary accounts I can find) fought so consistently against it.

I'm not just experiencing confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance or whatever Shadow will accuse me of.... I accepted the idea that polygamy was of God my entire adult life... That WAS my confirmation bias.. That is, until I honestly and humbly and prayerfully allowed myself be open to other considerations.

You mention that the 3 examples I used are merely examples of people who lived the N&E covenant wrongly... If this were the case, then where are the examples of those who lived it correctly? Are you making a case that Alma's converts, the children of Ammon, or the Nephites after Christ's coming began living a righteous form of polygamy?

The New and Everlasting Covenant was (and is) most definitely a thing. And it is a covenant. And we both agree it appears to have been broken... But the manner in which the principle of multiple wives managed to become a major component of God's New and Everlasting Covenant in the final dispensation, I believe is very very suspect.

As for "thus saith the Lord" revelations drying up... For me its evident that this was already occuring towards the end of Joseph's life, and all but ended with his death.

I have to accept the POSSIBILITY that polygamy may have occurred in our history due to man's tendencies to abuse authority, seek after lusts, follow the pride of their hearts, and to fall from grace. This was the cause of multiple wives and concubines at least 3 separate times in the Book of Mormon. And the tendencies of God's people to have these flaws was warned of all through the book.

Is it not possible that the Book of Mormon gave the Gentile church a clear warning of the way God's people have justified the practice of multiple wives in the past - and would justify its practice in the future? Mormon saw our day and tailor made the compilation for us... If Celestial plural marriage is just and true, and was to be required of us in the last days, then why would Mormon make this so confusing for us?

p.s. I do love the Walker Lake story of Christ's visit to the humble descendants of Joseph... We can certainly agree that this event was a sure indicator of the state of the Ephraimite Gentile church.

I believe in the Eight Estate of Probation and Progression. The Path of Eternal Progression is much longer then most people believe. The Principle of Plural Wives is one where only the very Elect are required to live such here. If you were to look into the Scripture and Oral Traditions, there is not one good example of how to live this principle here in this realm, not even the Messiah's wives could lived it without some contention. We still worship "the G_d of Abraham, and of Issac, and of Jacob", all who had multiple wives, and the 12 Tribes of Yisrael would not have ever been able to reach those numbers without Jacob having multiple wives.

So who is required to live this Principle specifically? Dispensation Presidencies, and we see the two main Kings of Yisrael did with many more wives then most, but they both were eventually found unworthy and fall short of Glory. It is a test that comes as a two edge sword, much like the Abrahamic test!

As for Revelations disappearing, I agree with you. I have listed how the early Saints had dozens and dozens of Revelations a year up unto 1836, and the it declined very quickly unto less then ten revelations per year were received in 1838, where the Messiah said they were under condemnation.

I thank you for your kind words. I once sound like a lone person speaking into the face of a strong wind... but of lately, I have been so amazed that so many people eyes and hearts have began to be open. It is not just my words, by no means, but it is the hand of the Messiah, who is sifting the Elect out, or preparing them for a new work, when it dawns.

Shalom Shalom

I also believe in a version of the 8 estates of probation and progression!!! See, we are Brothers! You're just going to be a bit more fruitful of a brother than me haha ......

Centerline wrote: ↑April 12th, 2019, 10:23 pm Topcat,

The only object fact in this discussion is the actual wording of 6.7.3 and everything else is our subjective opinion of what it means and the consequences thereof.

The purpose of the policy is to protect the church and its members from individuals within the church who act in clear, deliberate, and open public opposition to the church. The purpose of this policy is not to protect members of the church from leaders who abuse their authority by forcing members to obey them in some manner.

Your argument seems to be the wording of the policy would allow leaders to abuse members by forcing obedience. Fortunately, policy is nothing more than a general guideline. Do you believe the church and it’s leaders created the policy so they can abuse members by forcing them to obey them in all things? The most you can say is some misguided leader would attempt to justify there abuse of a member through the use of this policy. Fortunately, there are checks and balances. Especially during the process of receiving significant church discipline.

How come in all of your hypothetical discussions the member is being punished and forced to obey for doing nothing wrong by a wicked leader. Wouldn’t it be more likely the member is teaching and preaching in a clear, deliberate, and open manner beliefs that are in opposition to what we believe? If that was the case the church would need a policy like 6.7.3 to protect itself.

Of course, you believe many other things that influences your perception of the purpose and consequences of the policy and the same can be said for me. The focus of the discussion was a disagreement over your opinion that 6.7.3 demands our obedience to our leaders. That is clearly false because no where in 6.7.3 does it mention obedience. It clearly states that apostate behavior is behavior where a member is acting in clear, deliberate, and open opposition to the church and its leaders.

Centerline,

You: The only object fact in this discussion is the actual wording of 6.7.3 and everything else is our subjective opinion of what it means and the consequences thereof.

Me: So here you are agreeing that the section does green light abuse of authority by virtue of what it says, and then in the second part of the same sentence you invalidate the meaning. Again, this is your confirmation bias speaking through you. Your unbelief is that President Nelson holds the keys (i.e., he's infallible) and therefore the words in Section 6.7.3 can't possibly mean what they say they mean. The Lord calls that "calling evil good".

A better example of words being subject to interpretation is 3 Nephi 16:10:

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

If you believe "the gentiles" refers to other non-mainstream LDS people, then you won't feel the need to repent because you are not sinning against the gospel, it's the other bloke!

An apples-to-apples comparison to Section 6.7.3 would be if verse 16 above read this way:

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the mainstream LDS Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

In this verse, the language is precise and there's no doubt, just like in section 6.7.3.

So for you to comment, "Yeah, the actual wording of verse 10 is objective fact but everything else is our subjective opinion of what it means and the consequences thereof."

Makes zero sense. It's just a case study in the effects of confirmation bias. Honestly, if I was a college professor teaching confirmation bias I could bring you in to my non-LDS class as an object lesson to demonstrate what confirmation bias looks like. The students would marvel. It would appear to them that you are actually hypnotized and truly believe that the small chihuahua you're holding is a cat when it's really a dog. The power of (un)belief truly is astonishing!

You:

The purpose of the policy is to protect the church and its members from individuals within the church who act in clear, deliberate, and open public opposition to the church. The purpose of this policy is not to protect members of the church from leaders who abuse their authority by forcing members to obey them in some manner.

Me: ABSOLUTELY! 100% veritas!!

The obvious concern for the member with loyalty to Jesus over man and institution is, What happens if the institution or men leading the institution have gone astray? What happens if they teach the commandments of men for the doctrines of God, having only a form of godliness (JSH 1:19)? Wouldn't men who have gone astray write Section 6.7.3 as is, to rid the organization of those who protest against their priestcraft?

You: Your argument seems to be the wording of the policy would allow leaders to abuse members by forcing obedience. Fortunately, policy is nothing more than a general guideline. Do you believe the church and it’s leaders created the policy so they can abuse members by forcing them to obey them in all things?

Me: Yes. That's why this is an evil policy. Evil leaders would want "peace, harmony, and love" (your words) with their subjects as I said earlier. Peace, harmony, and love result, as you say, when opposition disappears. Thus, obedience to them, not the Lord, is the desired result.

You: The most you can say is some misguided leader would attempt to justify there abuse of a member through the use of this policy.

Me: That is your hope. That is your right to hope that. If you were aware of what was going on, and you have confessed you are not aware, you would know that abuse of authority is rampant, ESPECIALLY in SLC.

You: How come in all of your hypothetical discussions the member is being punished and forced to obey for doing nothing wrong by a wicked leader. Wouldn’t it be more likely the member is teaching and preaching in a clear, deliberate, and open manner beliefs that are in opposition to what we believe? If that was the case the church would need a policy like 6.7.3 to protect itself.

Me: The reason I give only those hypothetical situations, is because that is specifically what the Section is for. The section is geared towards and specifically written for innocent, righteous members not for wicked members.

If the section was for traditionally "wicked" members, the definition would be written accurately. It would say apostasy is a repudiation of Jesus Christ, something to that effect.

However, the authors of that section do not have that in mind. All they have in mind, as you said, is protecting themselves, or their institution, their corporation, their MONEY!

And by the way, I'm assuming you are not on the corporate payroll, so they especially love when people like you spend so much time and energy defending their subterfuge from exposure! Their #1 spell-casting mind control method of choice is the loaded term of "keys". That instantly puts their subjects in a trance which few can escape. I'm not joking in the least bit.

You: The focus of the discussion was a disagreement over your opinion that 6.7.3 demands our obedience to our leaders. That is clearly false because no where in 6.7.3 does it mention obedience.

Me: Words and phrases have synonyms. I am just choosing a synonym which triggers you. However I have used your own words. For a bully, the absence of opposition from his subjects is peace, harmony, and love.

You: It clearly states that apostate behavior is behavior where a member is acting in clear, deliberate, and open opposition to the church and its leaders.

Me: Yes it does clearly state "to the church or its leaders".



I think I have exposed the policy for what it is. It should be re-written to not encourage abuse of authority, and that is done by clearly stating the standard for apostasy has nothing to do with opposing leaders, but opposing Christ.

There is great arrogance and blasphemy in suggesting that the leaders are EQUAL TO Christ. In the minds of most members, that is the very premise assumed. Thus the confirmation bias.

I've invested time to try to help you understand it. If you are continuing to disagree, then I wish you the best. Thank you. Sincerely, Topcat

Topcat, you crack me up!

The policy says what it says and all we have been doing is discussing our perceived ramifications of the policy.

There are many examples in your responses where you twist my words to confirm your inherently biased position. I’m the first to admit I am inherently biased to believe in a different position. The difference between us is I will admit my bias. You just claim your opinions as fact and say your right and I’m wrong.

This would be like me bringing a mixed breed dog into the college classroom, say a Bichon Poodle mix. You argue it’s more of a poodle and I argue it’s more of a bichon. Then, you claim victory when I clearly can’t see it’s a poodle.

Arguing over the possible ramifications of 6.7.3, the purposes of the policy, possible consequences of its use, possible ways in which it could be used, etc. None of that is as simple as you attempt to make it. Is it a dog or a cat. You basically just called me an idiot because you know I’m wrong and walked away.

Should we really be surprised we disagree on this issue. I identified you much earlier on in the thread as someone who has heretical beliefs.

You believe the leaders of the church have intentionally created and continue to enforce an evil policy. That belief is clearly heretical.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 11:24 am Topcat, you crack me up!

The policy says what it says and all we have been doing is discussing our perceived ramifications of the policy.

There are many examples in your responses where you twist my words to confirm your inherently biased position. I’m the first to admit I am inherently biased to believe in a different position. The difference between us is I will admit my bias. You just claim your opinions as fact and say your right and I’m wrong.

This would be like me bringing a mixed breed dog into the college classroom, say a Bichon Poodle mix. You argue it’s more of a poodle and I argue it’s more of a bichon. Then, you claim victory when I clearly can’t see it’s a poodle.

Arguing over the possible ramifications of 6.7.3, the purposes of the policy, possible consequences of its use, possible ways in which it could be used, etc. None of that is as simple as you attempt to make it. Is it a dog or a cat. You basically just called me an idiot because you know I’m wrong and walked away.

Should we really be surprised we disagree on this issue. I identified you much earlier on in the thread as someone who has heretical beliefs.

You believe the leaders of the church have intentionally created and continue to enforce an evil policy. That belief is clearly heretical.

Please know that I converted to the church as an adult in my mid-20s. Served a mission less than a year later. Serve faithfully and mostly in leadership positions my entire life as I raised a large family, with kids married in the temple and serving missions, in fact one is on a mission right as we speak.

I had confirmation bias before I joined the church (and overcame it then), and during my tenure as a faithful and stalwart member up until shedding my confirmation bias once again a few years ago. There is much sacrifice that must be made in shedding confirmation bias in religious matters. I've done it twice.

With that perspective in mind please consider your comments.

Your charge of me being a heretic is ironic because I am the one defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ whereas you are completely condoning flagrant violation of the principles outlined in D&C 121.

I'm not calling you an idiot any more than I was an idiot or anybody is an idiot for having confirmation bias. The way Jesus said it in D&C 121 was "ere he is aware." That's probably a confirmation bias He is describing.

There you go again. You are just inherently biased to another position. You believe you are the one defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ by defending your position, based on your experiences and what you believe. You have lost faith in what you once believed. Now you have faith in what you currently believe. Church policy 6.7.3 does not violate any gospel principles and is in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You once would have believed that, now you don’t. You have lost faith faith in priesthood keys, I have not. I receive guidance from the Spirit to govern that which is within my authority and so do you. So I believe others can do the same. So it is easy for me to believe President Russell M. Nelson received guidance from God to govern that which is within his authority. Do you believe the same?