LDS Freedom Forum

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:50 am I think President Erying's counsel was timely and needed:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

Unfortunately you will have some people that say, "I have done or I do all of those things for my leaders but still can't quite overcome their favorite little nag."

Other Notable quotes from his talk:

"There are, however, improvements we could and must make. We could rise higher in our power to sustain each other. It will take faith and effort."

"In the priesthood quorum and in the family, increased faith to sustain each other is the way we build the Zion the Lord wants us to create."

Notice he includes the family

"You make a promise with God, whose servants these are, that you will sustain (the servants of God)."

Pray for leaders as they share their inspired messages. Listen for messages from their talks that will come as to personal prayers for help. "When the answers come, and I promise you they will, we will grow in our faith to sustain all the Lord's servants."

President George Q. Cannon passed on a warning that I pass on to you as my own:

“God has chosen His servants. He claims it as His prerogative to condemn them, if they need condemnation. He has not given it to us individually to censure them. No man, however strong he may be in the faith, however high in the Priesthood, can speak evil of the Lord’s anointed and find fault with God’s authority on the earth without incurring His displeasure. The Holy Spirit will withdraw itself from such a man, and he will go into darkness. This being the case, do you not see how important it is that we should be careful?"

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:01 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:50 am I think President Erying's counsel was timely and needed:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

Unfortunately you will have some people that say, "I have done or I do all of those things for my leaders but still can't quite overcome their favorite little nag."

Other Notable quotes from his talk:

"There are, however, improvements we could and must make. We could rise higher in our power to sustain each other. It will take faith and effort."

"In the priesthood quorum and in the family, increased faith to sustain each other is the way we build the Zion the Lord wants us to create."

Notice he includes the family

"You make a promise with God, whose servants these are, that you will sustain (the servants of God)."

Pray for leaders as they share their inspired messages. Listen for messages from their talks that will come as to personal prayers for help. "When the answers come, and I promise you they will, we will grow in our faith to sustain all the Lord's servants."

President George Q. Cannon passed on a warning that I pass on to you as my own:

“God has chosen His servants. He claims it as His prerogative to condemn them, if they need condemnation. He has not given it to us individually to censure them. No man, however strong he may be in the faith, however high in the Priesthood, can speak evil of the Lord’s anointed and find fault with God’s authority on the earth without incurring His displeasure. The Holy Spirit will withdraw itself from such a man, and he will go into darkness. This being the case, do you not see how important it is that we should be careful?"

DrTanner,

You quoted Pres Eyring. He offered five questions we may ask ourselves when considering whether or not we sustain a leader. These questions can help us navigate our natural tendency to be critical and help clarify what the Holy Ghost tells us about our leaders.

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity? How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

Let me answer my own questions:

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity?

He wants to keep up the culture of oppression in the Church, where leadership is not questioned and members are branded as apostate and in need of repentance for asking legit questions. He wants LOYALTY to the leaders, NOT the Lord. See question #3.

How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

It would be very important if they actually were delivering real "thus saith the Lord" revelations. But they don't, and don't even claim to deliver such revelations. So what they do/ say is no more important than any other member of the Church.

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

They benefit by slowing down the members who remain active from rising up in mutiny. They get far fewer complaints and Sam Youngs. When they visit local stakes and units, they'll be met with far less "rebellious"/ "apostate" members, manifesting by less awkward questions.

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

We can draw logical conclusions from each of his questions:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

Meaning, he doesn't want people to focus on the content of their teachings, but he wants minds to focus on the red herring: ad hominem. He doesn't want people to think there are VALID doctrinal issues with their teachings, he only wants the masses to think any "dissent" is because of their human weakness.

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

There is no "thus saith the Lord" type of evidence, so he encourages confirmation bias to kick in and provide evidence, like: shortening church to two hours, or lowering the min age for missionaries, or even reversing policy on baptism of children of gay parents. He desires these type of pure policy announcements to be viewed as "evidence."

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

Nothing is mentioned of loyalty to Christ, only loyalty to man. This is cult-like leadership and VERY VERY VERY dangerous. 1 Nephi 8:5-8 cautions us about following men dressed in white, and teaches us Whom we should really be following. This is a shameless and brazen, narcissistic attempt at priestcraft.

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

Guilt tripping here. He wants testimonies to be given around the world by members that they are God's servants. This is a leading question. Objection! He's training members in how to bear testimony of the GA's. Shameless!

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Chilling and vain. He's asking for prayers for himself, and requiring love. Love isn't something you ask for. It's something that people willingly give. And they willingly give it to whom they love. There's no need to ask. "Please love me". "Please love us," is absurd on its face. Clearly, all of these questions could have come from a book entitled, "How to brainwash your cult." A true servant and messenger of God would NEVER even contemplate such a message. Why? Because they don't need to have any glory or honor. They would not point to themselves. They wouldn't feel a need to be set up as a light. They would run from such accolades. They would condemn such idolatry.

Do we Mormons not know what a true servant looks like? What he would sound like? How he would act?

Lastly, Elder Eyring says this:

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

Again, this is unabashed cult influence and teaching. He's guilt tripping, or shaming the members. Sad, sad, sad! He's saying members must repent if they can't answer his ridiculous questions the way he wants them to, which involves love and loyalty being given to the leaders, the elite, the "authorities"!

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 12:24 am

eddie wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 11:10 pm

djinwa wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:54 pm Ironically, I'm guessing many who accuse others of being apostate or anti-Mormon, fear the church is BS. So they want to avoid hearing anything contrary to what they want to believe.

Never did understand how you can brag about having the truth when you only considered one side. Thank goodness our courts and science don't work that way.

Exhibit B

The rest of the forum really should learn at your feet. Your feedback is fabulous .

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:10 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:01 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:50 am I think President Erying's counsel was timely and needed:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

Unfortunately you will have some people that say, "I have done or I do all of those things for my leaders but still can't quite overcome their favorite little nag."

Other Notable quotes from his talk:

"There are, however, improvements we could and must make. We could rise higher in our power to sustain each other. It will take faith and effort."

"In the priesthood quorum and in the family, increased faith to sustain each other is the way we build the Zion the Lord wants us to create."

Notice he includes the family

"You make a promise with God, whose servants these are, that you will sustain (the servants of God)."

Pray for leaders as they share their inspired messages. Listen for messages from their talks that will come as to personal prayers for help. "When the answers come, and I promise you they will, we will grow in our faith to sustain all the Lord's servants."

President George Q. Cannon passed on a warning that I pass on to you as my own:

“God has chosen His servants. He claims it as His prerogative to condemn them, if they need condemnation. He has not given it to us individually to censure them. No man, however strong he may be in the faith, however high in the Priesthood, can speak evil of the Lord’s anointed and find fault with God’s authority on the earth without incurring His displeasure. The Holy Spirit will withdraw itself from such a man, and he will go into darkness. This being the case, do you not see how important it is that we should be careful?"

DrTanner,

You quoted Pres Eyring. He offered five questions we may ask ourselves when considering whether or not we sustain a leader. These questions can help us navigate our natural tendency to be critical and help clarify what the Holy Ghost tells us about our leaders.

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity? How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

Let me answer my own questions:

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity?

He wants to keep up the culture of oppression in the Church, where leadership is not questioned and members are branded as apostate and in need of repentance for asking legit questions. He wants LOYALTY to the leaders, NOT the Lord. See question #3.

How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

It would be very important if they actually were delivering real "thus saith the Lord" revelations. But they don't, and don't even claim to deliver such revelations. So what they do/ say is no more important than any other member of the Church.

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

They benefit by slowing down the members who remain active from rising up in mutiny. They get far fewer complaints and Sam Youngs. When they visit local stakes and units, they'll be met with far less "rebellious"/ "apostate" members, manifesting by less awkward questions.

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

We can draw logical conclusions from each of his questions:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

Meaning, he doesn't want people to focus on the content of their teachings, but he wants minds to focus on the red herring: ad hominem. He doesn't want people to think there are VALID doctrinal issues with their teachings, he only wants the masses to think any "dissent" is because of their human weakness.

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

There is no "thus saith the Lord" type of evidence, so he encourages confirmation bias to kick in and provide evidence, like: shortening church to two hours, or lowering the min age for missionaries, or even reversing policy on baptism of children of gay parents. He desires these type of pure policy announcements to be viewed as "evidence."

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

Nothing is mentioned of loyalty to Christ, only loyalty to man. This is cult-like leadership and VERY VERY VERY dangerous. 1 Nephi 8:5-8 cautions us about following men dressed in white, and teaches us Whom we should really be following. This is a shameless and brazen, narcissistic attempt at priestcraft.

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

Guilt tripping here. He wants testimonies to be given around the world by members that they are God's servants. This is a leading question. Objection! He's training members in how to bear testimony of the GA's. Shameless!

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Chilling and vain. He's asking for prayers for himself, and requiring love. Love isn't something you ask for. It's something that people willingly give. And they willingly give it to whom they love. There's no need to ask. "Please love me". "Please love us," is absurd on its face. Clearly, all of these questions could have come from a book entitled, "How to brainwash your cult." A true servant and messenger of God would NEVER even contemplate such a message. Why? Because they don't need to have any glory or honor. They would not point to themselves. They wouldn't feel a need to be set up as a light. They would run from such accolades. They would condemn such idolatry.

Do we Mormons not know what a true servant looks like? What he would sound like? How he would act?

Lastly, Elder Eyring says this:

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

Again, this is unabashed cult influence and teaching. He's guilt tripping, or shaming the members. Sad, sad, sad! He's saying members must repent if they can't answer his ridiculous questions the way he wants them to, which involves love and loyalty being given to the leaders, the elite, the "authorities"!

I’d maybe ask this same question to those who didn’t look at the serpent when invited or didn’t get on the boat with Noah.

But if your looking for a modern example of why, President Nelson gave it in his talk on Sat.

topcat wrote: ↑

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity? How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:17 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:10 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:01 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:50 am I think President Erying's counsel was timely and needed:


Unfortunately you will have some people that say, "I have done or I do all of those things for my leaders but still can't quite overcome their favorite little nag."

Other Notable quotes from his talk:





Notice he includes the family

DrTanner,

You quoted Pres Eyring. He offered five questions we may ask ourselves when considering whether or not we sustain a leader. These questions can help us navigate our natural tendency to be critical and help clarify what the Holy Ghost tells us about our leaders.

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity? How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

Let me answer my own questions:

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity?

He wants to keep up the culture of oppression in the Church, where leadership is not questioned and members are branded as apostate and in need of repentance for asking legit questions. He wants LOYALTY to the leaders, NOT the Lord. See question #3.

How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

It would be very important if they actually were delivering real "thus saith the Lord" revelations. But they don't, and don't even claim to deliver such revelations. So what they do/ say is no more important than any other member of the Church.

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

They benefit by slowing down the members who remain active from rising up in mutiny. They get far fewer complaints and Sam Youngs. When they visit local stakes and units, they'll be met with far less "rebellious"/ "apostate" members, manifesting by less awkward questions.

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

We can draw logical conclusions from each of his questions:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

Meaning, he doesn't want people to focus on the content of their teachings, but he wants minds to focus on the red herring: ad hominem. He doesn't want people to think there are VALID doctrinal issues with their teachings, he only wants the masses to think any "dissent" is because of their human weakness.

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

There is no "thus saith the Lord" type of evidence, so he encourages confirmation bias to kick in and provide evidence, like: shortening church to two hours, or lowering the min age for missionaries, or even reversing policy on baptism of children of gay parents. He desires these type of pure policy announcements to be viewed as "evidence."

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

Nothing is mentioned of loyalty to Christ, only loyalty to man. This is cult-like leadership and VERY VERY VERY dangerous. 1 Nephi 8:5-8 cautions us about following men dressed in white, and teaches us Whom we should really be following. This is a shameless and brazen, narcissistic attempt at priestcraft.

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

Guilt tripping here. He wants testimonies to be given around the world by members that they are God's servants. This is a leading question. Objection! He's training members in how to bear testimony of the GA's. Shameless!

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Chilling and vain. He's asking for prayers for himself, and requiring love. Love isn't something you ask for. It's something that people willingly give. And they willingly give it to whom they love. There's no need to ask. "Please love me". "Please love us," is absurd on its face. Clearly, all of these questions could have come from a book entitled, "How to brainwash your cult." A true servant and messenger of God would NEVER even contemplate such a message. Why? Because they don't need to have any glory or honor. They would not point to themselves. They wouldn't feel a need to be set up as a light. They would run from such accolades. They would condemn such idolatry.

Do we Mormons not know what a true servant looks like? What he would sound like? How he would act?

Lastly, Elder Eyring says this:

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

Again, this is unabashed cult influence and teaching. He's guilt tripping, or shaming the members. Sad, sad, sad! He's saying members must repent if they can't answer his ridiculous questions the way he wants them to, which involves love and loyalty being given to the leaders, the elite, the "authorities"!

I’d maybe ask this same question to those who didn’t look at the serpent when invited or didn’t get on the boat with Noah.

But if your looking for a modern example of why, President Nelson gave it in his talk on Sat.

Moses and Noah were true prophets.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:25 am

topcat wrote: ↑

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity? How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

The motive is that i frequently see statements from people complaining that this forum is suddenly anti-Mormon and apostate, or comments implying that various posters are anti-mormon(including myself) . Whenever I ask them to explain what exactly about those people and this forum is anti Mormon, they do not explain or answer.

So, I gave them an area to voice their concerns because I genuinely want to understand what they are thinking and why. I’d rather come together and understand each other than bicker. The fact that they’ve said nothing so far only suggests to me that they really don’t know why they dislike certain teachings other than the fact that it doesn’t align with their personal world view.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:38 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:17 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:10 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:01 am

DrTanner,

You quoted Pres Eyring. He offered five questions we may ask ourselves when considering whether or not we sustain a leader. These questions can help us navigate our natural tendency to be critical and help clarify what the Holy Ghost tells us about our leaders.




First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity? How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

Let me answer my own questions:

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity?

He wants to keep up the culture of oppression in the Church, where leadership is not questioned and members are branded as apostate and in need of repentance for asking legit questions. He wants LOYALTY to the leaders, NOT the Lord. See question #3.

How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

It would be very important if they actually were delivering real "thus saith the Lord" revelations. But they don't, and don't even claim to deliver such revelations. So what they do/ say is no more important than any other member of the Church.

Also ask yourself, what could be gained by the GA's, and by Pres Eyring himself? How does HE personally benefit? What outcome does he desire? What behavior does he want members to have?

They benefit by slowing down the members who remain active from rising up in mutiny. They get far fewer complaints and Sam Youngs. When they visit local stakes and units, they'll be met with far less "rebellious"/ "apostate" members, manifesting by less awkward questions.

Lastly, what judgments does he make about members who can't answer some of the questions the way Elder Eyring wants them to answer the questions?

We can draw logical conclusions from each of his questions:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

Meaning, he doesn't want people to focus on the content of their teachings, but he wants minds to focus on the red herring: ad hominem. He doesn't want people to think there are VALID doctrinal issues with their teachings, he only wants the masses to think any "dissent" is because of their human weakness.

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

There is no "thus saith the Lord" type of evidence, so he encourages confirmation bias to kick in and provide evidence, like: shortening church to two hours, or lowering the min age for missionaries, or even reversing policy on baptism of children of gay parents. He desires these type of pure policy announcements to be viewed as "evidence."

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

Nothing is mentioned of loyalty to Christ, only loyalty to man. This is cult-like leadership and VERY VERY VERY dangerous. 1 Nephi 8:5-8 cautions us about following men dressed in white, and teaches us Whom we should really be following. This is a shameless and brazen, narcissistic attempt at priestcraft.

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

Guilt tripping here. He wants testimonies to be given around the world by members that they are God's servants. This is a leading question. Objection! He's training members in how to bear testimony of the GA's. Shameless!

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Chilling and vain. He's asking for prayers for himself, and requiring love. Love isn't something you ask for. It's something that people willingly give. And they willingly give it to whom they love. There's no need to ask. "Please love me". "Please love us," is absurd on its face. Clearly, all of these questions could have come from a book entitled, "How to brainwash your cult." A true servant and messenger of God would NEVER even contemplate such a message. Why? Because they don't need to have any glory or honor. They would not point to themselves. They wouldn't feel a need to be set up as a light. They would run from such accolades. They would condemn such idolatry.

Do we Mormons not know what a true servant looks like? What he would sound like? How he would act?

Lastly, Elder Eyring says this:



Again, this is unabashed cult influence and teaching. He's guilt tripping, or shaming the members. Sad, sad, sad! He's saying members must repent if they can't answer his ridiculous questions the way he wants them to, which involves love and loyalty being given to the leaders, the elite, the "authorities"!

I’d maybe ask this same question to those who didn’t look at the serpent when invited or didn’t get on the boat with Noah.

But if your looking for a modern example of why, President Nelson gave it in his talk on Sat.

Moses and Noah were true prophets.

That is an easy statement in hindsight, I imagine it would have been far more difficult to sustain Moses and Noah in the moment when you could potentially see weakness or things you may not have agreed with. Many including his own apostles had a hard time sustaining Jesus in the heat of the moment. That is why President Erying accurately states it will take prayers and faith.

Point being, the people had to follow and trust that a MAN was speaking for God and choose to have faith to follow.

President Nelson is asking us to help gather Israel like never before, focus on learning about Christ in our homes like never before and minister to those in need like never before. We have an opportunity to experience the fruits from those prophetic invitations. How is salvation impacted? I can think of a lot of individuals on both sides that may weigh in that uncomfortable conversation at a later date.

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 12:50 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:38 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:17 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:10 am

I’d maybe ask this same question to those who didn’t look at the serpent when invited or didn’t get on the boat with Noah.

But if your looking for a modern example of why, President Nelson gave it in his talk on Sat.

Moses and Noah were true prophets.

That is an easy statement in hindsight, I imagine it would have been far more difficult to sustain Moses and Noah in the moment when you could potentially see weakness or things you may not have agreed with. Many including his own apostles had a hard time sustaining Jesus in the heat of the moment. That is why President Erying accurately states it will take prayers and faith.

Point being, the people had to follow and trust that a MAN was speaking for God and choose to have faith to follow.

President Nelson is asking us to help gather Israel like never before, focus on learning about Christ in our homes like never before and minister to those in need like never before. We have an opportunity to experience the fruits from those prophetic invitations. How is salvation impacted? I can think of a lot of individuals on both sides that may weigh in that uncomfortable conversation at a later date.

DrTanner,

You have chosen a side. So I applaud you in that you're not lukewarm.

I know you cannot be persuaded because I and I imagine others have valiantly tried. You live in a world where the Brethren can't be led astray, and that they are absolutely representatives of God. You have zero doubt in your mind.

You have no problems with Pres. Eyring's attempt to instill loyalty in and love for HIMSELF and his fellow apostolic travelers.

Aside from all the other comments I made in respond to Pres Eyring, if we were to just focus on his solicitation for loyalty and pleading to love him/ the Brethren, that, to me, is more than sufficient to prove the man is off the reservation of the Savior. He's totally lost it. Those solicitations are pure evidence of priestcraft and vanity.

Honestly, I do not know how you can disagree with that assessment.

Your inability or refusal to concur with the assessment that it is patently unbecoming a servant of the Lord to solicit loyalty to HIM and love for HIM proves you have irrevocably made your choice. I do have heartfelt concern for you when they are exposed as impostors, because your foundation will have been shattered, and often that leads to despair. Saul's foundation was shattered, but he made it. He became a powerful voice for the Savior once he saw the light, literally. It's not like there's no hope for you. There is. And I do pray for you that you will question your main tradition/assumption that they are true servants (despite being no evidence to point to).

Never mind that such solicitations Pres Eyring made in his talk would EVER be made by a holy man of God who is on Christ's errand. Such a man would rebuke such advances toward them. Such a man truly would say, "Get thee hence, Satan", when confronted with the temptation to garner loyalty from followers. Such flattery from obsequious or blinded followers is like kryptonite to true servants whose mission is to glorify God and avoid self-glorification.

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:17 am

TheSnail wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 6:06 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 7th, 2019, 10:02 am

TheSnail wrote: ↑April 7th, 2019, 9:01 am The OP launched a scathing attack against a superb school and program with zero actual evidence of wrong doing.

I completed the pathway program, which was excellent, and have obtained my programming certificate through byui which has really helped me in my career.

I can tell you that it's a excellent school, and if anyone is picking a University, you'd be crazy not to choose byui in almost any circumstance.

The school is extremely well run and affordable, in stark contrast to most universities today.

You can accuse them of whatever, but the results speak for themselves. I'm disgusted by this nit-picking.

If you think a familial relation is evidence of nepotism, you could learn something from the book of Mormon. Alma son of Alma, Helaman soon of Alma, Helaman son of Helaman, Nephi son of Helaman, Nephi son of Nephi. That's 5 generations of great men who were the sons of great men. If you read your scriptures more you will learn why that is often the case.

Instead of being jealous, you could look at the sacrifices that the Lord's anointed make, and be grateful, and hope you don't get called to similar position.

Are you part of the family?

I would agree with you about your attack on the relevance of nepotism, if the facts backed you up.

Your comparison of the patriarchal order of God calling sons of true messengers of God to the patriarchal order doesn't apply, does it?

None of the men save Joseph Smith in the last days have claimed to have been chosen and sent by God. However, the prophets in the scriptures do make the claim, and the revelations back up their claim, and we have the Holy Ghost to discern whether those revelations and scriptures in print are true or not.

As to the son of a member of the First Presidency who runs BYU Hawaii, I think you will find this expose of his lack of competence in critical thinking astounding, if you have the stomach to listen to it:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/12/rad ... me-part-1/

Also, I would ask you, if there was mountains of evidence (and there is!) of nepotism in the church from the days of Brigham Young forward, in other words, the apostles themselves and their family members, including sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters, and close business associates who are friends, were found to occupy the seats of corporate boards, and corporate officers, of dozens and dozens of corporations worth tens of billions of dollars, would that change your mind about nepotism, or would you consider that to be appropriate way to disperse the sacred funds of tithing?

Also, in case you are not aware, there is only one person who has ABSOLUTE power and authority in the Church. And that would be the president of the church. Look it up.

In fact the Church is a DBA. The real name is The President of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Look it up.

The reason why the general authorities are fond of constantly quoting the president of the church, is because he is their boss, literally. He pays them their salary, and gives them their positions on corporate boards, etc.

Dallin H. Oaks has been a board member of companies that are connected with the true Gadianton powers of our day. Wikipedia, the curated biography of famous people, even acknowledges that fact:

Additionally, over the course of his career, Oaks served as a director of the Union Pacific Corporation and Union Pacific Railroad.

Those corporations are directly connected and run by the ruling oligarchy which has destroyed liberty in all nations of the world just as Moroni prophesied in Ether 8.

We even have a former CFR apostle who was just called last year. The CFR is long documented and proven to be an enemy to freedom and to the United States of America's very existence.

Only a completely ignorant and unpatriotic person would ever consider associating with the CFR. Or it could just be an accident, and Elder Gong could be clueless and innocently deceived.

If you can show me any type of evidence that any of our living apostles give a flying fart about freedom and liberty, in the mold of even 2% of Ezra Taft Benson, I'd be very impressed. We're on the LDS freedom forum. Surley you have an appreciation for liberty and such talks
of defending the Constitution or defending freedom or talks that are calculated to enlarge liberty would have caught your attention over the years. Start with President Nelson and go down the line. Please produce some talks.

When I was coming to the church, I discovered mountains of anti-Mormon accusations like you have piled up in this post. I started researching some of it and found that it was false and disingenuous, but for every one that I researched, there were a thousand more. The confirmation of the holy ghost cut through it all like a knife through butter. There are answers to every accusation you've made, but it's not worth my time or effort to argue with apostates on the internet. Your apostasy is your responsibility, and I sincerely hope you repent before you drag anyone down with you.

As for me and my house, we will follow the holy ghost, who has confirmed the church and sustained it's leadership.

I've not given one drop of anti Mormon stuff here. I'm pro Mormon 100%, pro Truth

I know the BoM is true and know Joseph was a true prophet. And know Jesus is our Savior.

I'm anti corruption.

In your worldview, the Brethren are infallible and incapable of being corrupted.

I believe the vast majority of members are good and wholesome and mean well. I'm not saying the members in general are corrupt, but do sustain the scriptures which point out over and over that the eye of the body (JST Mark 9) can fail us.

History shows apostasy almost always follows Restoration. Is our history exempt from that pattern?

The great irony is you calling me apostate for preaching the doctrines of Mormonism. The proof of who is on the right side of the fence is whether you are willing to examine the principles which I can put forth to you and the evidence of apostasy that's in plain view.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:14 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 12:50 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:38 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:17 am

Moses and Noah were true prophets.

That is an easy statement in hindsight, I imagine it would have been far more difficult to sustain Moses and Noah in the moment when you could potentially see weakness or things you may not have agreed with. Many including his own apostles had a hard time sustaining Jesus in the heat of the moment. That is why President Erying accurately states it will take prayers and faith.

Point being, the people had to follow and trust that a MAN was speaking for God and choose to have faith to follow.

President Nelson is asking us to help gather Israel like never before, focus on learning about Christ in our homes like never before and minister to those in need like never before. We have an opportunity to experience the fruits from those prophetic invitations. How is salvation impacted? I can think of a lot of individuals on both sides that may weigh in that uncomfortable conversation at a later date.

DrTanner,

You have chosen a side. So I applaud you in that you're not lukewarm.

I know you cannot be persuaded because I and I imagine others have valiantly tried. You live in a world where the Brethren can't be led astray, and that they are absolutely representatives of God. You have zero doubt in your mind.

You have no problems with Pres. Eyring's attempt to instill loyalty in and love for HIMSELF and his fellow apostolic travelers.

Aside from all the other comments I made in respond to Pres Eyring, if we were to just focus on his solicitation for loyalty and pleading to love him/ the Brethren, that, to me, is more than sufficient to prove the man is off the reservation of the Savior. He's totally lost it. Those solicitations are pure evidence of priestcraft and vanity.

Honestly, I do not know how you can disagree with that assessment.

Your inability or refusal to concur with the assessment that it is patently unbecoming a servant of the Lord to solicit loyalty to HIM and love for HIM proves you have irrevocably made your choice. I do have heartfelt concern for you when they are exposed as impostors, because your foundation will have been shattered, and often that leads to despair. Saul's foundation was shattered, but he made it. He became a powerful voice for the Savior once he saw the light, literally. It's not like there's no hope for you. There is. And I do pray for you that you will question your main tradition/assumption that they are true servants (despite being no evidence to point to).

Never mind that such solicitations Pres Eyring made in his talk would EVER be made by a holy man of God who is on Christ's errand. Such a man would rebuke such advances toward them. Such a man truly would say, "Get thee hence, Satan", when confronted with the temptation to garner loyalty from followers. Such flattery from obsequious or blinded followers is like kryptonite to true servants whose mission is to glorify God and avoid self-glorification.

Well I suppose the one thing your post would prove out is another example Stahura may be looking for that would qualify for the claims brought into question.

That being said you seem to be going to great lengths at an attempt to label my belief system, categorize your view of my how you perceive my perceptions, and place me in a paradigm you have created for those who sustain the leaders with no thought for my own experiences with the Holy Ghost and my feelings towards Christ and others. Lest I be guilty of some of the same I think at this point it is probably best to say thank you for your prayers and god speed.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:25 pm Are people considered anti towards the teachings of Christ or simply the church organization?

If its just the church organization they are anti towards, then it begs to question why are they putting so much emphasis on attacking or fault finding the church?
Is it a warning?
Sense of betrayal?
Pride?
Desire for it to be more pure?

I can see two types of “antis” as they have been called...One that is mourning an increasingly imperfect church body and the other who has become bitter about an increasingly imperfect church body. Which brings the thought back to Eyrings priesthood talk. Those who criticize instead of sustain experience some negative consequences (bitterness?). And darkness.

Expressing concern is okay! Expressing questions is okay! Expressing doubt is okay! Expressing these things with no concern for the qualities of respect, love, humility and decency is not going to come across well or be received well. THIS is what has grown to be a problem on this forum. The respect for the leaders of the church, the sustaining of who has been called has been set aside just the same as society has set them aside in our everyday lives.

I respect person A
I dont respect person B
Each person said the same phrase or did the same deed that doesnt sit well with me...
I mention it to both but my words and tone and attitude will be different for person A than person B

How we speak our concerns determines and shows our attitude and if we have basic respect or if that has been cast aside.

My question is why do we expect so much from others than we do of ourselves?

Those who think poorly of the leaders need to exercise some self reflection and humility and ponder on how they themselves would hope to be received if they were a leader of the church. Would they really be able to do better? Be more holy? Have less weaknesses? Receive revelation more frequently and the “good stuff”, the meat? Could they handle the responsibility? How would they handle not being able to satisfy the many voices crying out to them with all different requests and demands.

My belief is that once we allow ourselves to have unsettled doubts or questions for a prolonged period of time, the adversary sets in and its a downward journey until we decide to shut up with our own beliefs and senses of entitlement (humble ourselves) and reground in the basic truths and submit to them. If we fail to self correct our “humanness” then we can become anti against the bassic doctrines of salvation.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:55 pm

Now look, there have been obvious examples of "Apostasy" here. People who straight up say the Church is fallen...

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:25 pm Are people considered anti towards the teachings of Christ or simply the church organization?

If its just the church organization they are anti towards, then it begs to question why are they putting so much emphasis on attacking or fault finding the church?
Is it a warning?
Sense of betrayal?
Pride?
Desire for it to be more pure?

I can see two types of “antis” as they have been called...One that is mourning an increasingly imperfect church body and the other who has become bitter about an increasingly imperfect church body. Which brings the thought back to Eyrings priesthood talk. Those who criticize instead of sustain experience some negative consequences (bitterness?). And darkness.

Expressing concern is okay! Expressing questions is okay! Expressing doubt is okay! Expressing these things with no concern for the qualities of respect, love, humility and decency is not going to come across well or be received well. THIS is what has grown to be a problem on this forum. The respect for the leaders of the church, the sustaining of who has been called has been set aside just the same as society has set them aside in our everyday lives.

I respect person A
I dont respect person B
Each person said the same phrase or did the same deed that doesnt sit well with me...
I mention it to both but my words and tone and attitude will be different for person A than person B

How we speak our concerns determines and shows our attitude and if we have basic respect or if that has been cast aside.

My question is why do we expect so much from others than we do of ourselves?

Those who think poorly of the leaders need to exercise some self reflection and humility and ponder on how they themselves would hope to be received if they were a leader of the church. Would they really be able to do better? Be more holy? Have less weaknesses? Receive revelation more frequently and the “good stuff”, the meat? Could they handle the responsibility? How would they handle not being able to satisfy the many voices crying out to them with all different requests and demands.

My belief is that once we allow ourselves to have unsettled doubts or questions for a prolonged period of time, the adversary sets in and its a downward journey until we decide to shut up with our own beliefs and senses of entitlement (humble ourselves) and reground in the basic truths and submit to them. If we fail to self correct our “humanness” then we can become anti against the bassic doctrines of salvation.

shadow wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:55 pm

Now look, there have been obvious examples of "Apostasy" here. People who straight up say the Church is fallen...

Curious to understand your view of what is or isn't apostasy, is this an example of an apostate post?-

"And then he (Patriarch) died, his life prolonged by the Lord for an extraordinary length of time (oldest man in Utah), which "coincidentally" timed up perfectly with the one (Snuffer) who was sent to proclaim repentance to the Church, to set the Church in order, if you will. So the Church "authorities" (the Sanhedrin) had its chance in 2012 - 2014. The testimony of a modern Abinadi was meekly given, and self-righteously rejected, the rejecters viewing Abinadi as a crazy apostate, though they would never cross swords with his actual testimony or teachings. So in April 2013 the Patriarch was called home, replaced by one (Snuffer) clothed in the authority of the patriarchal priesthood, knowledge of which has been lost, but which is now being revealed in its glory and splendor for those who have the humility to seek, knock, and ask."

shadow wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:55 pm

Now look, there have been obvious examples of "Apostasy" here. People who straight up say the Church is fallen...

Curious to understand your view of what is or isn't apostasy, is this an example of an apostate post?-

"And then he (Patriarch) died, his life prolonged by the Lord for an extraordinary length of time (oldest man in Utah), which "coincidentally" timed up perfectly with the one (Snuffer) who was sent to proclaim repentance to the Church, to set the Church in order, if you will. So the Church "authorities" (the Sanhedrin) had its chance in 2012 - 2014. The testimony of a modern Abinadi was meekly given, and self-righteously rejected, the rejectors viewing Abinadi as a crazy apostate, though they would never cross swords with his actual testimony or teachings. So in April 2013 the Patriarch was called home, replaced by one (Snuffer) clothed in the authority of the patriarchal priesthood, knowledge of which has been lost, but which is now being revealed in its glory and splendor for those who have the humility to seek, knock, and ask."

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:27 pm

shadow wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:55 pm

Now look, there have been obvious examples of "Apostasy" here. People who straight up say the Church is fallen...

Curious to understand your view of what is or isn't apostasy, is this an example of an apostate post?-

"And then he (Patriarch) died, his life prolonged by the Lord for an extraordinary length of time (oldest man in Utah), which "coincidentally" timed up perfectly with the one (Snuffer) who was sent to proclaim repentance to the Church, to set the Church in order, if you will. So the Church "authorities" (the Sanhedrin) had its chance in 2012 - 2014. The testimony of a modern Abinadi was meekly given, and self-righteously rejected, the rejecters viewing Abinadi as a crazy apostate, though they would never cross swords with his actual testimony or teachings. So in April 2013 the Patriarch was called home, replaced by one (Snuffer) clothed in the authority of the patriarchal priesthood, knowledge of which has been lost, but which is now being revealed in its glory and splendor for those who have the humility to seek, knock, and ask."

Shadow,

You're attempting to bait somebody into identity politics, if you will.

The real question is, what idea/ principle/ doctrine/ teaching do you label "apostate" that I shared in that quote of me?

Will you answer that question?

Please avoid the branding you're attempting, the persona attack, if you will, without actually specifying the apostate teaching, "apostate" being defined as a departure from the Truths taught by Jesus Christ.

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:27 pm

shadow wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:55 pm

Now look, there have been obvious examples of "Apostasy" here. People who straight up say the Church is fallen...

Curious to understand your view of what is or isn't apostasy, is this an example of an apostate post?-

"And then he (Patriarch) died, his life prolonged by the Lord for an extraordinary length of time (oldest man in Utah), which "coincidentally" timed up perfectly with the one (Snuffer) who was sent to proclaim repentance to the Church, to set the Church in order, if you will. So the Church "authorities" (the Sanhedrin) had its chance in 2012 - 2014. The testimony of a modern Abinadi was meekly given, and self-righteously rejected, the rejecters viewing Abinadi as a crazy apostate, though they would never cross swords with his actual testimony or teachings. So in April 2013 the Patriarch was called home, replaced by one (Snuffer) clothed in the authority of the patriarchal priesthood, knowledge of which has been lost, but which is now being revealed in its glory and splendor for those who have the humility to seek, knock, and ask."

Shadow,

You're attempting to bait somebody into identity politics, if you will.

The real question is, what idea/ principle/ doctrine/ teaching do you label "apostate" that I shared in that quote of me?

Will you answer that question?

Please avoid the branding you're attempting, the persona attack, if you will, without actually specifying the apostate teaching, "apostate" being defined as a departure from the Truths taught by Jesus Christ.

shadow wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:37 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:27 pm

shadow wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:55 pm

Now look, there have been obvious examples of "Apostasy" here. People who straight up say the Church is fallen...

Curious to understand your view of what is or isn't apostasy, is this an example of an apostate post?-

"And then he (Patriarch) died, his life prolonged by the Lord for an extraordinary length of time (oldest man in Utah), which "coincidentally" timed up perfectly with the one (Snuffer) who was sent to proclaim repentance to the Church, to set the Church in order, if you will. So the Church "authorities" (the Sanhedrin) had its chance in 2012 - 2014. The testimony of a modern Abinadi was meekly given, and self-righteously rejected, the rejecters viewing Abinadi as a crazy apostate, though they would never cross swords with his actual testimony or teachings. So in April 2013 the Patriarch was called home, replaced by one (Snuffer) clothed in the authority of the patriarchal priesthood, knowledge of which has been lost, but which is now being revealed in its glory and splendor for those who have the humility to seek, knock, and ask."

Shadow,

You're attempting to bait somebody into identity politics, if you will.

The real question is, what idea/ principle/ doctrine/ teaching do you label "apostate" that I shared in that quote of me?

Will you answer that question?

Please avoid the branding you're attempting, the persona attack, if you will, without actually specifying the apostate teaching, "apostate" being defined as a departure from the Truths taught by Jesus Christ.

The whole thread is identifying apostate behavior. Take that up with Stahura.
We've been over the apostate Snuffer too many times to rehash. He's of Satan and you're a follower of him. Yes, he and his followers departed from Christ's truths. Best wishes in that regard.

Avoid personal attacks? That's funny. Just to remind you about personal attacks- remember your post regarding my avatar? It was just today. Certainly your memory isn't that bad?? I get the shallowness of it, but it's your game. If you don't want to play that game then don't play that game.

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 12:36 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:25 am

topcat wrote: ↑

First of all, what was the motive for deciding on this topic in the first place? Honestly, why spend ONE second on this topic? Why the necessity? How is it important, in view of how we are saved?

The motive is that i frequently see statements from people complaining that this forum is suddenly anti-Mormon and apostate, or comments implying that various posters are anti-mormon(including myself) . Whenever I ask them to explain what exactly about those people and this forum is anti Mormon, they do not explain or answer.

So, I gave them an area to voice their concerns because I genuinely want to understand what they are thinking and why. I’d rather come together and understand each other than bicker. The fact that they’ve said nothing so far only suggests to me that they really don’t know why they dislike certain teachings other than the fact that it doesn’t align with their personal world view.

Stahura,

To clarify, you quoted me out of context. I was asking my questions in reference to ELDER EYRING'S QUESTIONS, not your thread!

I'm with you. All of the TBM's who protest too much because their idols are questioned never want to talk about specifics. They run and hide and mostly engage in personal attacks like, "you're apostate".

Thanks.

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:55 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:25 pm Are people considered anti towards the teachings of Christ or simply the church organization?

If its just the church organization they are anti towards, then it begs to question why are they putting so much emphasis on attacking or fault finding the church?
Is it a warning?
Sense of betrayal?
Pride?
Desire for it to be more pure?

I can see two types of “antis” as they have been called...One that is mourning an increasingly imperfect church body and the other who has become bitter about an increasingly imperfect church body. Which brings the thought back to Eyrings priesthood talk. Those who criticize instead of sustain experience some negative consequences (bitterness?). And darkness.

Expressing concern is okay! Expressing questions is okay! Expressing doubt is okay! Expressing these things with no concern for the qualities of respect, love, humility and decency is not going to come across well or be received well. THIS is what has grown to be a problem on this forum. The respect for the leaders of the church, the sustaining of who has been called has been set aside just the same as society has set them aside in our everyday lives.

I respect person A
I dont respect person B
Each person said the same phrase or did the same deed that doesnt sit well with me...
I mention it to both but my words and tone and attitude will be different for person A than person B

How we speak our concerns determines and shows our attitude and if we have basic respect or if that has been cast aside.

My question is why do we expect so much from others than we do of ourselves?

Those who think poorly of the leaders need to exercise some self reflection and humility and ponder on how they themselves would hope to be received if they were a leader of the church. Would they really be able to do better? Be more holy? Have less weaknesses? Receive revelation more frequently and the “good stuff”, the meat? Could they handle the responsibility? How would they handle not being able to satisfy the many voices crying out to them with all different requests and demands.

My belief is that once we allow ourselves to have unsettled doubts or questions for a prolonged period of time, the adversary sets in and its a downward journey until we decide to shut up with our own beliefs and senses of entitlement (humble ourselves) and reground in the basic truths and submit to them. If we fail to self correct our “humanness” then we can become anti against the bassic doctrines of salvation.

What is the recourse for this following situation?

Leader A hears question / concern of Member B who respectfully communicates the question / concern; then Leader A ignores Member B? Literally, Leader A just ignores and refuses to engage and communicate with Member B.


I've seen and heard of this happening to members many times.

Now I ask you, who is filled with love, light, and Christlike attributes, the one who is asking the question respectfully or the leader who flatly ignores the member?

In a nutshell, the above scenario, though a microcosm, aptly describes the state of affairs in the Church.

The above scenario is bad enough. How rude it is to ignore a fellow human being, much less somebody we're (esp a leader is) supposed to love as a fellow member of the flock.

But it gets much much worse!

If the ignored Member B attempts to get a response (because Leader A coldly ignores him/her) and is therefore forced to go to the next level above in the hierarchy (say from bishop to SP, or SP to Area Authority), then what invariably, and I mean INVARIABLY, happens is Member B is threatened. "Shut up or face disciplinary action," is what he/she is told.

And still it gets worse.

Member B actually gets excommunicated, and this is the real bad part. The friends of Member B in his/her home ward/ stake are lied to by Leader A who says that Member B is "apostate", thus the innocent Member B is now branded as apostate and to be shunned lest a similar fate come to the friends of Member B.

So I wonder, MMBelieve, if you can go rework your entire comment with the reality I've shared in mind?

Shouldn't the leaders be the ones who are virtuous and Christlike, and who honor God not only with their lips, but their hearts too? In the very real scenario I described above, which is SOP of the leadership for people who are asking questions, will you make a judgment of wrong and right (what it is, and who is doing it)?

Backblast wanted to talk about "approach." I would ask him, and you, is the approach of Leader A above becoming a member of the Church, much less one in a leadership position?

Finally, if the leadership is going to use a "Shut up! Get in back into line or be ex'ed" approach, then what is the remedy for members? Seriously, I ask you, what is the recourse? What can Member B do?


I'll answer the question: members are leaving in droves. I'm guessing the growth rate is at a negative 10% right now, and tithing revenue for the corporation is plummeting. As in a free fall.

What can Leader A do? He can repent. He can confess his sins. That would mean the Church would have to throw itself at the mercy of the people it has been abusing (just using the scenario I outlined above). That would mean it would have to be transparent. That's what true repentance involves. That means where the money is going would have to be divulged.

And what do you think the chances of anything resembling that type of transparency are?

ZERO.

Which means the course of the Church is set in stone. It will collapse.

The good news is that, as individuals, we don't need the institutional Church for our salvation. Communities of Christ, if you will (no reference to any sect I'm making), can and are being formed. Communities or fellowships are important. And, lest I be remiss, the ultimate community will be called Zion, and that will be the refuge the righteous will seek. I wish it was the COJCOLDS. I so wish that was the case. It's a big bummer that it isn't.

President George Q. Cannon passed on a warning that I pass on to you as my own:

“God has chosen His servants. He claims it as His prerogative to condemn them, if they need condemnation. He has not given it to us individually to censure them. No man, however strong he may be in the faith, however high in the Priesthood, can speak evil of the Lord’s anointed and find fault with God’s authority on the earth without incurring His displeasure. The Holy Spirit will withdraw itself from such a man, and he will go into darkness. This being the case, do you not see how important it is that we should be careful?"

"Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds." - Orson Prat

“I admire men and women who have developed the questioning spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas and stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed..Hugh B Brown

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:50 am I think President Erying's counsel was timely and needed:

1. Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5. Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Those questions for most of us will lead to some uneasiness and a need to repent.

B. wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 3:17 pm Maybe the avatar wasn't even his choice. Maybe his file leader made him choose it. Maybe he doesn't even get to choose which discussions he participates in but just does as he is directed. Maybe.