LDS Freedom Forum

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:07 pm 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?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:56 pm Thank you, I believe we now clearly understand where each of us is coming from. I think we both already knew what was causing the difference of opinion.

Of course, a person who believes the church is in a state of apostasy would believe what you believe about 6.7.3 and probably judge the same on many other church matters.

I believe the church is not in a state of apostasy and it is you who has chosen apostate beliefs.

You have exposed nothing other than what you plainly believe about the current state of the church. You were inherently biased to this opinion before you started the discussion and have proved yourself guilty of confirmation bias. A phrase you like to throw at others.

You choose to believe in your version of Mormonism and I support your right to embrace such beliefs. But, you are still a heretic.

Thanks

Of course, a person who believes the church is in a state of apostasy would believe what you believe about 6.7.3 and probably judge the same on many other church matters.

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:28 pm I believe he is a prophet, seer, and revelator by virtue of his calling, but not by any gifts given to him from God.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:28 pm I believe he is a prophet, seer, and revelator by virtue of his calling, but not by any gifts given to him from God.

Well, that just doesn't add up does it? What on earth do you know about the gifts he is given from God? Absolutely nothing. Zilch.

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:32 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:28 pm I believe he is a prophet, seer, and revelator by virtue of his calling, but not by any gifts given to him from God.

Well, that just doesn't add up does it? What on earth do you know about the gifts he is given from God? Absolutely nothing. Zilch.

A prophet should prophesy, a seer should see, a revelator should reveal, a translator should translate.

What has he done? List away please.

He is regarded in high esteem only because of the office he holds and not because of any demonstrated gifts from God.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:01 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:32 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:28 pm I believe he is a prophet, seer, and revelator by virtue of his calling, but not by any gifts given to him from God.

Well, that just doesn't add up does it? What on earth do you know about the gifts he is given from God? Absolutely nothing. Zilch.

A prophet should prophesy, a seer should see, a revelator should reveal, a translator should translate.

What has he done? List away please.

He is regarded in high esteem only because of the office he holds and not because of any demonstrated gifts from God.

That is not even an argument, that is deflection plain and simple, you don't tell God how to use His Prophet, none of that is up to you. You don't even have an argument, your words are water in sand.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:57 pm In reference to the language used in 6.7.3

I think a significant factor to take into consideration is the purpose of the policy. In my opinion, the policy is there to protect members, the church, from those who behave in opposition to what we believe, in a clear and deliberate manner.

To avoid being subjected to the enforcement of this policy against you it would be necessary to stop your behavior. In this context, yes, it would require your obedience in the form refraining from certain behavior. You would still be free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.

Take yourself as an example. I assume you are a member in good standing with the church. Even though you have many beliefs that oppose the teachings of the church. You could share these beliefs privately with those you trust. If you began to share these beliefs in a clear, deliberate, and open manner, in opposition to your leaders, who have asked you to stop the behavior, then, you could be held accountable by this policy.

Hosh4710 wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:09 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:01 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:32 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm

Well, that just doesn't add up does it? What on earth do you know about the gifts he is given from God? Absolutely nothing. Zilch.

A prophet should prophesy, a seer should see, a revelator should reveal, a translator should translate.

What has he done? List away please.

He is regarded in high esteem only because of the office he holds and not because of any demonstrated gifts from God.

That is not even an argument, that is deflection plain and simple, you don't tell God how to use His Prophet, none of that is up to you. You don't even have an argument, your words are water in sand.

Are you saying a prophet, seer, and revelator should not prophecy, see, and revelate? He is not telling God how to use his prophet, he is simply stateing the gifts the Prophet should possess, especially when we sustain them as having such gifts. You are the one deflecting. I sense a pattern in your replies to people. You simply tell them they are wrong, without giving any argument save your word only.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:32 pm

Hosh4710 wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:09 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:01 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:32 pm

A prophet should prophesy, a seer should see, a revelator should reveal, a translator should translate.

What has he done? List away please.

He is regarded in high esteem only because of the office he holds and not because of any demonstrated gifts from God.

That is not even an argument, that is deflection plain and simple, you don't tell God how to use His Prophet, none of that is up to you. You don't even have an argument, your words are water in sand.

Are you saying a prophet, seer, and revelator should not prophecy, see, and revelate? He is not telling God how to use his prophet, he is simply stateing the gifts the Prophet should possess, especially when we sustain them as having such gifts. You are the one deflecting. I sense a pattern in your replies to people. You simply tell them they are wrong, without giving any argument save your word only.

There is nothing to argue about your words and his words are like air. I don't have to throw facts to you because you demand them, you don't control me, you don't tell me what to do or how to speak or what to think, I am not in your hive. Prove your point, don't try to tell me to disprove it, obviously you can't or you would. You don't know what the Prophet does other than what you see on TV or what you hear from someone, you don't know anything about him other than that, your words and accusations are empty.

Hosh4710 wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:37 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:32 pm

Hosh4710 wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:09 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:01 pm

That is not even an argument, that is deflection plain and simple, you don't tell God how to use His Prophet, none of that is up to you. You don't even have an argument, your words are water in sand.

Are you saying a prophet, seer, and revelator should not prophecy, see, and revelate? He is not telling God how to use his prophet, he is simply stateing the gifts the Prophet should possess, especially when we sustain them as having such gifts. You are the one deflecting. I sense a pattern in your replies to people. You simply tell them they are wrong, without giving any argument save your word only.

There is nothing to argue about your words and his words are like air. I don't have to throw facts to you because you demand them, you don't control me, you don't tell me what to do or how to speak or what to think, I am not in your hive. Prove your point, don't try to tell me to disprove it, obviously you can't or you would. You don't know what the Prophet does other than what you see on TV or what you hear from someone, you don't know anything about him other than that, your words and accusations are empty.

Case and point. Thank you.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:47 pm Holy cow, Topcat, if I give you an inch you take a mile.

Yes, obedience is required to participate in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disobedience will prevent you from receiving the blessings it can bring into your life. Some disobedience, like deliberately and actively preaching against your priesthood leaders, can result in your loss of the blessings associated with membership in His church. This is righteous and appropriate because your priesthood leaders are teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it has been revealed in these the latter-days.

You don’t have to obey. You just have to stop active and open opposition. How you do that is your decision. How do you stop doing something that is wrong?

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:24 pm

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:57 pm In reference to the language used in 6.7.3

I think a significant factor to take into consideration is the purpose of the policy. In my opinion, the policy is there to protect members, the church, from those who behave in opposition to what we believe, in a clear and deliberate manner.

To avoid being subjected to the enforcement of this policy against you it would be necessary to stop your behavior. In this context, yes, it would require your obedience in the form refraining from certain behavior. You would still be free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.

Take yourself as an example. I assume you are a member in good standing with the church. Even though you have many beliefs that oppose the teachings of the church. You could share these beliefs privately with those you trust. If you began to share these beliefs in a clear, deliberate, and open manner, in opposition to your leaders, who have asked you to stop the behavior, then, you could be held accountable by this policy.

So you are agreeing with the language of the Section then, after all?

You are confirming that the language means what it says it means, which is the policy "requires your obedience" to the leaders (your words above), which has been what I've been saying and you have been opposing all along.

My point from the beginning is that the obedience to LEADERS and NOT the Lord is what is required in Section 6.7.3, and there is no caveat stating something like, "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, inasmuch as they are in harmony with the Gospel."

The standard of what and who is "apostate" should and must be the Gospel and not the whims of some man who may not like what you are saying or teaching.

Remember, the rights of the priesthood are INSEPARABLY CONNECTED to heaven. The language of this Section DISCONNECTS or SEPARATES the leadership from heaven. It can only be concluded that is an intentional disconnection and is no accident.

You said, " If you began to share these beliefs in a clear, deliberate, and open manner, in opposition to your leaders, who have asked you to stop the behavior, then, you could be held accountable by this policy."

The main point behind our discussion and the dangerous wording of 6.7.3 which requires obedience to leaders is that the LEADERS could be apostate, and the member completely righteous. But the leader would "win", by definition, because the member was opposing the apostate leader.

Do you see this?

Keeping this point in mind, I'll restate your quote: If you began to share beliefs which are IN HARMONY WITH THE GOSPEL in a clear, deliberate, and open manner, in opposition to your leaders (WHOSE TEACHINGs OPPOSE THE GOSPEL), and who have asked you to stop the behavior (of exposing their false teachings), then, you could be held accountable by this policy.

THIS CASE is the very danger, the slippery slope, that this Section unleashes on the membership. This Section empowers corrupt leaders to target the righteous and knowledgeable members, and gives them the justification, per the Handbook, to cast out the members who are actually preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Incidentally, the BoM warns when the righteous begin to be cast out, then the people are ripening for destruction. This is a very, very serious issue. That's why I'm bringing it up.

Nehor, if you will recall, attempted to enforce his priestcraft by FORCE (which is what excommunication is). Section 6.7.3 is Nehorian in every single way. The words of the BoM PERFECTLY illustrate how evil leaders will use force to get their way. Poor Brother Gideon. He tried to oppose the false doctrine by debating, and was killed for trying to expose the corruptness of Nehor. Section 6.7.3 dangerously allows, by policy, for the voices of the Gideons of the Church to be silenced! It's no accident. And it happens ALL. THE. TIME.

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 3:49 pm

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:47 pm Holy cow, Topcat, if I give you an inch you take a mile.

Yes, obedience is required to participate in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disobedience will prevent you from receiving the blessings it can bring into your life. Some disobedience, like deliberately and actively preaching against your priesthood leaders, can result in your loss of the blessings associated with membership in His church. This is righteous and appropriate because your priesthood leaders are teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it has been revealed in these the latter-days.

You don’t have to obey. You just have to stop active and open opposition. How you do that is your decision. How do you stop doing something that is wrong?

There are lots of cases where people are being excommunicated for privately believing something and not doing anything out in the open.

And there are cases where people are excommunicated for simply teaching actual history which the church leaders don't even disagree with. In other words it's the truth, but the leaders don't want that truth being taught to the members. By excommunicating a member in good standing who even has a temple recommend, the leaders can exercise their control and dominion of the saints.

Some members are getting excommunicated for doing absolutely nothing, and their crime is being married to (or child or parent of) the person who has been targeted by the leaders.

You're okay with that type of behavior of the leaders?

These are a few examples of how corrupt leaders coerce and harm members, and their justification of course is none other than Section 6.7.3.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:55 pm For those concerned that this forum has become anti-mormon or Apostate, here is your chance to voice your concerns and attack IDEAS . Tell us WHAT is apostate.

So, I ask you to answer these questions for me. No need to name names, just answer the questions.

Nobody ever answers my questions though. What is Anti? What is a dissident voice? What is apostate?

Maybe I can list some simple questions for you and those who are making the above statements can answer.

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that a given subject has been taught incorrectly by a General Authority? Even if it can be objectively shown using scripture?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that a policy change was not revelation?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that it's been a long time since we've seen revelation in the Church(When compared to the revelations that came through Joseph Smith)?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that a General Authority might not actually be a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator" until he has properly received such gifts directly from God INDEPENDENT and SEPARATE from his ordination at the hands of other General Authorities?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to discuss the Church having changed history and scripture(Like D&C 101) when citing sources that are literally the Church itself and journals from Church Authorities from the mid-late 1800's?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that polygamy is an abomination based on scriptures like :
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
OR by bringing up the fact that the folllowing once existed in D&C 101 and was later removed:
Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to question the Church support of City Creek?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to question the number of Temples built throughout the world, or maybe just question the number of Temples built in Utah alone?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to question the amount of charity the Church has reported?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident reject ANY statement made by General Authorities? Even if they contradict other General Authorities whether those other GA's are currently alive or past GA's who have been gone for decades?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to reject ANY statement made by General Authorities that seem to contradict the scriptures?(The main argument being that scriptures "trump" anything being taught from the pulpit)

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that "Follow the Prophet" MAY turn into idolatry at some point if you do not guard yourself?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that the Church does not have the "Full Truth" or that some truths may come from outside the hierarchy of the Church(either though normal "average" church members or even non-members). I'm not referring to Revelation for the church, but spiritual truths.

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that one may fully repent of grievous sins and be sanctified without every having talked to a Bishop or Stake President to confess?

Is it Anti-Mormon or Dissident to suggest that the Church is caving to social pressures and attempting to be "popular" in the world?



Now look, there have been obvious examples of "Apostasy" here. People who straight up say the Church is fallen, the Church was never true etc.

But the vast majority of situations where I'm seeing complains of "voicing dissent" and "Apostasy" and "Anti" comes from normal every-day members discussing the questions listed above(There are many more topics I could throw up there).

Please, if you are willing, answer these questions for us.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:28 pm I believe he is a prophet, seer, and revelator by virtue of his calling, but not by any gifts given to him from God.

Well, that just doesn't add up does it? What on earth do you know about the gifts he is given from God? Absolutely nothing. Zilch.

Spoiler

Financial irresponsibility (which contribute to debt, bankruptcy, poverty and related suffering) is undeniable. Changing scripture from what it states (increase) to mean “income” to get more money, is not of Christ. The reason God commanded tithe be based on increase is shown in the following example:

• 2 men earn the exact same income amount.
  1 man is the sole provider of a family of 7 and after paying bills has no increase left.
  2nd man lives with his parents who pay all his bills, so all of his income is increase.
  Yet, the church demand$ the $ame amount from each man - thereby causing the 1st family to be poor. Christ was about alleviating poverty and suffering - not causing more.

Deuteronomy 14:28-29 (conveniently ignored in lds curriculums) states that tithing collectors are to give at least 1/3 of TITHES to those in need. Christ asked those who can, to give much more.

While we are often pressured and shamed into giving “honest tithes,” church leaders keep money dark and secret, though Oaks did admit no tithes go to the poor. Funds intended for the poor go to the corporate empire of mormon leaders and we have no clue or say in how it’s spent. We do know the church had some elaborate malls built, and a list of greedy wordly companies using the name of Jesus Christ in vain. Meanwhile, about 1,000,000,000 of our brothers and sisters are starving. Who do TITHES belong to? God. And how do we love God? By loving the least of these.

Grand ribon-cutting opening by for another mall (at least 2 now) built using the name of Jesus Christ...






Even if you designated fast offerings - the church leaders now say it’s their money and they can use it as they want...

Thinker wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 9:40 am

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 12:28 pm I believe he is a prophet, seer, and revelator by virtue of his calling, but not by any gifts given to him from God.

Well, that just doesn't add up does it? What on earth do you know about the gifts he is given from God? Absolutely nothing. Zilch.

“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
A prophet of God, using the name of Jesus Christ, would never take from the poor, hide finances and other corruption dealing with sacred funds.

Obrien wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 9:25 am ponderized

topcat wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 2:24 pm

Centerline wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 1:57 pm In reference to the language used in 6.7.3

I think a significant factor to take into consideration is the purpose of the policy. In my opinion, the policy is there to protect members, the church, from those who behave in opposition to what we believe, in a clear and deliberate manner.

To avoid being subjected to the enforcement of this policy against you it would be necessary to stop your behavior. In this context, yes, it would require your obedience in the form refraining from certain behavior. You would still be free to believe whatever it is you want to believe.

Take yourself as an example. I assume you are a member in good standing with the church. Even though you have many beliefs that oppose the teachings of the church. You could share these beliefs privately with those you trust. If you began to share these beliefs in a clear, deliberate, and open manner, in opposition to your leaders, who have asked you to stop the behavior, then, you could be held accountable by this policy.

So you are agreeing with the language of the Section then, after all?

You are confirming that the language means what it says it means, which is the policy "requires your obedience" to the leaders (your words above), which has been what I've been saying and you have been opposing all along.

My point from the beginning is that the obedience to LEADERS and NOT the Lord is what is required in Section 6.7.3, and there is no caveat stating something like, "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, inasmuch as they are in harmony with the Gospel."

The standard of what and who is "apostate" should and must be the Gospel and not the whims of some man who may not like what you are saying or teaching.

Remember, the rights of the priesthood are INSEPARABLY CONNECTED to heaven. The language of this Section DISCONNECTS or SEPARATES the leadership from heaven. It can only be concluded that is an intentional disconnection and is no accident.

You said, " If you began to share these beliefs in a clear, deliberate, and open manner, in opposition to your leaders, who have asked you to stop the behavior, then, you could be held accountable by this policy."

The main point behind our discussion and the dangerous wording of 6.7.3 which requires obedience to leaders is that the LEADERS could be apostate, and the member completely righteous. But the leader would "win", by definition, because the member was opposing the apostate leader.

Do you see this?

Keeping this point in mind, I'll restate your quote: If you began to share beliefs which are IN HARMONY WITH THE GOSPEL in a clear, deliberate, and open manner, in opposition to your leaders (WHOSE TEACHINGs OPPOSE THE GOSPEL), and who have asked you to stop the behavior (of exposing their false teachings), then, you could be held accountable by this policy.

THIS CASE is the very danger, the slippery slope, that this Section unleashes on the membership. This Section empowers corrupt leaders to target the righteous and knowledgeable members, and gives them the justification, per the Handbook, to cast out the members who are actually preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Incidentally, the BoM warns when the righteous begin to be cast out, then the people are ripening for destruction. This is a very, very serious issue. That's why I'm bringing it up.

Nehor, if you will recall, attempted to enforce his priestcraft by FORCE (which is what excommunication is). Section 6.7.3 is Nehorian in every single way. The words of the BoM PERFECTLY illustrate how evil leaders will use force to get their way. Poor Brother Gideon. He tried to oppose the false doctrine by debating, and was killed for trying to expose the corruptness of Nehor. Section 6.7.3 dangerously allows, by policy, for the voices of the Gideons of the Church to be silenced! It's no accident. And it happens ALL. THE. TIME.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 10:04 am

Obrien wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 9:25 am ponderized

Thank you, I am always looking for new words, I plan on using that!