LDS Freedom Forum

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:55 pmLeader 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.

Why won't they just LISTEN to me!?

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:53 pm

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?"

How do you reconcile such a statement ^^ with statements like these:

"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

Let me tell you how I reconcile these statements.

Suggesting that one of them have been wrong in a single conference talk and pointing out the exact scriptures that show this is not "Speaking of their human weakness" or "Speaking evil of them". Again, If I were to point out an error in doctrine in Sunday School, the teacher would not tell me that I was "pointing out his human weakness" or "Speaking evil of him" or "Finding Fault in him".
He might feel awkard or dumb , a large part of that depends on how I went about it, and the other part depends on how comfortable he is admitting mistakes, but you could not say that I spoke evil of him and found fault with him. It's as if he said 4+4 is 9 and I said oh wait 4+4 is actually 8.

If I were to suggest that he was an adulterer, or that he was a fallen prophet, or that he had committed some financial crime and accused him of having multiple wives, then you could say I was speaking evil of him.(This is precisely what happened to Joseph Smith, and those people were excommunicated for it)
Or maybe if I suggested that those 12 purposely bind us down to get money from the members, that they purposely deceive us. Then I would be "Speaking evil of them".

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.

I believe encompassed in sustaining our leaders is our ability to appropriately provide feedback, differing opinions, and even correction. There are channels and appropriate ways to communicate these things.

Have you talked with your bishop or stake president specifically about how you feel many of the leaders are teaching the Doctrine of Christ incorrectly?

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:36 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 idea / principle / doctrine would be the idea that the Patriarch was ordained in the same way Hyrum Smith was and all of the descendants after him, so to suggest that someone(Denver) outside of the Church and the lineage of Hyrum Smith could show up and receive that power in the midst of making the claim that because he was rejected , the Q12 and FP were stripped of any authority they had left, could possibly have what he is claiming just seems silly.

Given that Apostasy in the church is defined as pushing away from the church, this would be an apostate statement.

That's my assumption of what is going on in his head anyway.

Stahura,

Thanks for sharing, though I'm not clear what you mean by your main sentence,

"to suggest that someone(Denver) outside of the Church and the lineage of Hyrum Smith could show up and receive that power in the midst of making the claim that because he was rejected , the Q12 and FP were stripped of any authority they had left, could possibly have what he is claiming just seems silly."

I'm not saying that Hyrum Smith and his great great grandson, Eldred Smith (who died in 2013) were ordained in the same way. The DC does say this in DC 124:

91 And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;

I interpret "by blessing and also by right" to refer to Joseph Smith Sr's lineage, like the sons of Levi have a right to the Aaronic Priesthood.

I've re-read your sentence "to suggest that someone(Denver) outside of the Church and the lineage of Hyrum Smith could show up and receive that power in the midst of making the claim that because he was rejected , the Q12 and FP were stripped of any authority they had left, could possibly have what he is claiming just seems silly," and don't understand what you're saying, so I can't respond.

To clarify what I was saying: the apostles in 1979 "retired" Patriarch Smith. Why? I explained why. He was a threat to their power and authority. They didn't want the competition. This is, granted, conjecture. But why else make the patriarch emeritus? There was no reason to abolish that office. That was the final power-consolidating move by the apostles, as far as the different quorums and authorities in the Church were concerned. It's all about CENTRALIZED control, which is anathema to Liberty. The bureaucrats in Washington DC are not our friends! They wish to rule over us. Same for any oligarchy, or ruling elite.

That last sentence I would float as a principle. The centralization of power should be avoided. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. DC 107 clearly teaches a DECENTRALIZATION of power. So I submit the CENTRALIZATION of power is a sign of apostasy, speaking in terms of principles.

As far as your quote of somebody "outside of the Church" ...showing up and receive that power", the man referred to was actually a holder of the priesthood (or in the Church). Though to be honest, I think the true principle is God can call whom He wants to call." He doesn't need to be put in a box and controlled by any man or any body of men or women. God can do His own work, at His good will and pleasure.

Finally, I think it's important to define correctly "apostasy." I believe you offered an institutional definition, which was "Apostasy in the church is defined as pushing away from the church."

That's one definition. That would suit the Church lawyers well, because they write the handbook. One day (as in Nov 2015) certain people can be considered "apostate" and the next day (last Friday), the same people can be considered not apostate. Rather than defer to what lawyers and bureaucrats say on the definition of an "apostate", isn't it better to define the term for what it really means, a departure from the living God. Paul defines it that way:

Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Peter said

2 Peter 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Alma was told by the Lord in Mosiah 26

...whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.

Mormon defines it as in 4 Nephi:

...and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness,...

Or, the Lord says in DC 50:44

He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall.

Here's the first definition that pops up on the Internet:

The abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

Here's what Webster's 1828 dictionary says:

An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion, or departure from one's faith or religion.

People can define words as they want to, but if you look Handbook 1, the definition of "apostasy" has ZERO to do with Jesus Christ or Truth. It has everything to do with obedience to institutional leaders. Section 6.7.3 is the "apostate" section of the handbook dealing ironically with the definition of "apostasy."

All of that being said, I go back and ask, what have I said that is a "Falling Away" from the truths taught by Jesus Christ? That I believe is what you're after in this thread, is that correct?

Shadow (and others who preach institutional authority as a key to salvation) desires to brand people, like you even, as apostate for opposing institutional policies and definitions, whereas I would submit that definition is a false definition, or a definition that is certainly not equivalent to an apostasy from Jesus/ the Gospel.

I believe LIGHT causes the cockroaches to flee. Ideas are bulletproof.

I desire to come into the light, and not scurry away because I fear something (the light). "Inviting light" is the tenor of this very thread. In the search for Truth, you're wanting to know why some people call you or have called you "apostate" and to bring the apostate ideas. I totally second that very good question.

B. wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 3:27 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:55 pmLeader 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.

Why won't they just LISTEN to me!?

They do! Via focus groups.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:53 pm

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?"

How do you reconcile such a statement ^^ with statements like these:

"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

Let me tell you how I reconcile these statements.

Suggesting that one of them have been wrong in a single conference talk and pointing out the exact scriptures that show this is not "Speaking of their human weakness" or "Speaking evil of them". Again, If I were to point out an error in doctrine in Sunday School, the teacher would not tell me that I was "pointing out his human weakness" or "Speaking evil of him" or "Finding Fault in him".
He might feel awkard or dumb , a large part of that depends on how I went about it, and the other part depends on how comfortable he is admitting mistakes, but you could not say that I spoke evil of him and found fault with him. It's as if he said 4+4 is 9 and I said oh wait 4+4 is actually 8.

If I were to suggest that he was an adulterer, or that he was a fallen prophet, or that he had committed some financial crime and accused him of having multiple wives, then you could say I was speaking evil of him.(This is precisely what happened to Joseph Smith, and those people were excommunicated for it)
Or maybe if I suggested that those 12 purposely bind us down to get money from the members, that they purposely deceive us. Then I would be "Speaking evil of them".

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.

I believe encompassed in sustaining our leaders is our ability to appropriately provide feedback, differing opinions, and even correction. There are channels and appropriate ways to communicate these things.

Have you talked with your bishop or stake president specifically about how you feel many of the leaders are teaching the Doctrine of Christ incorrectly?

I have, it goes nowhere. They give counsel about sustaining, praying for understanding etc etc nothing I don’t hear in this forum every day. It doesn’t go anywhere for anyone in every story I’ve heard of someone going to their local things like this. They won’t pass it along, it won’t be addressed.


I wish you would tell me how you reconcile those statements though send what you think about the rest of it

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 3:59 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:53 pm

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?"

How do you reconcile such a statement ^^ with statements like these:

"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

Let me tell you how I reconcile these statements.

Suggesting that one of them have been wrong in a single conference talk and pointing out the exact scriptures that show this is not "Speaking of their human weakness" or "Speaking evil of them". Again, If I were to point out an error in doctrine in Sunday School, the teacher would not tell me that I was "pointing out his human weakness" or "Speaking evil of him" or "Finding Fault in him".
He might feel awkard or dumb , a large part of that depends on how I went about it, and the other part depends on how comfortable he is admitting mistakes, but you could not say that I spoke evil of him and found fault with him. It's as if he said 4+4 is 9 and I said oh wait 4+4 is actually 8.

If I were to suggest that he was an adulterer, or that he was a fallen prophet, or that he had committed some financial crime and accused him of having multiple wives, then you could say I was speaking evil of him.(This is precisely what happened to Joseph Smith, and those people were excommunicated for it)
Or maybe if I suggested that those 12 purposely bind us down to get money from the members, that they purposely deceive us. Then I would be "Speaking evil of them".

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.

I believe encompassed in sustaining our leaders is our ability to appropriately provide feedback, differing opinions, and even correction. There are channels and appropriate ways to communicate these things.

Have you talked with your bishop or stake president specifically about how you feel many of the leaders are teaching the Doctrine of Christ incorrectly?

I have, it goes nowhere. They give counsel about sustaining, praying for understanding etc etc nothing I don’t hear in this forum every day. It doesn’t go anywhere for anyone in every story I’ve heard of someone going to their local things like this. They won’t pass it along, it won’t be addressed.

I wish you would tell me how you reconcile those statements though send what you think about the rest of it

I did explain how the statement are reconciled. There is an appropriate way to communicate.

I guess I’m confused at what was communicated to your bishop and stake president. Did they agree with you? Did they attempt to explain?

Well, it is one thing to apostatize from the truth/Gospel of Christ. And it is another to be "cast out".

Isaiah 66:

Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.....

That happens in these latter days....

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 4:10 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 3:59 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 2:53 pm

How do you reconcile such a statement ^^ with statements like these:




Let me tell you how I reconcile these statements.

Suggesting that one of them have been wrong in a single conference talk and pointing out the exact scriptures that show this is not "Speaking of their human weakness" or "Speaking evil of them". Again, If I were to point out an error in doctrine in Sunday School, the teacher would not tell me that I was "pointing out his human weakness" or "Speaking evil of him" or "Finding Fault in him".
He might feel awkard or dumb , a large part of that depends on how I went about it, and the other part depends on how comfortable he is admitting mistakes, but you could not say that I spoke evil of him and found fault with him. It's as if he said 4+4 is 9 and I said oh wait 4+4 is actually 8.

If I were to suggest that he was an adulterer, or that he was a fallen prophet, or that he had committed some financial crime and accused him of having multiple wives, then you could say I was speaking evil of him.(This is precisely what happened to Joseph Smith, and those people were excommunicated for it)
Or maybe if I suggested that those 12 purposely bind us down to get money from the members, that they purposely deceive us. Then I would be "Speaking evil of them".

I believe encompassed in sustaining our leaders is our ability to appropriately provide feedback, differing opinions, and even correction. There are channels and appropriate ways to communicate these things.

Have you talked with your bishop or stake president specifically about how you feel many of the leaders are teaching the Doctrine of Christ incorrectly?

I have, it goes nowhere. They give counsel about sustaining, praying for understanding etc etc nothing I don’t hear in this forum every day. It doesn’t go anywhere for anyone in every story I’ve heard of someone going to their local things like this. They won’t pass it along, it won’t be addressed.

I wish you would tell me how you reconcile those statements though send what you think about the rest of it

I did explain how the statement are reconciled. There is an appropriate way to communicate.

I guess I’m confused at what was communicated to your bishop and stake president. Did they agree with you? Did they attempt to explain?

I take their reactions to it with a grain of salt , because one Bishop might think something is apostasy and the next might think it's chill. Denver Snuffer's story is a perfect example of this.

I shared this with the Stake President that had originally handled my mission paperwork and interviews. Post-mission i discussed this with him. He was gleeful and loved it, he appreciated the essay that I sent him. He didn't find it necessary to pass along concerns.
My next Stake President talked to me about this. He also didn't find it necessary to pass along, but he had a thing where they would find "struggling youth" and he asked me to go around and "Help them out".

I didn't share this type of stuff with any leader for about 2 1/2 years later when I shared it with our Bishop who was indifferent about it, suggested I read and pray for understanding, something about someday understanding it and God puts things like that in our path to learn from. Didn't amount to anything.

Most bishops don't know very much stuff. People aren't called as bishops because they are Gospel scholars.

B. wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 5:21 pm Most bishops don't know very much stuff. People aren't called as bishops because they are Gospel scholars.

Didn’t say they were.

It seems like many people have difficulty in understanding the difference between facts and opinions, or that their perception of the meaning of said facts is their opinion, which they are entitled to believe.

In the earlier example involving Member B; I would describe the narrative as his perception of the events that took place and I’m sure Leader A would have a different perception.

Stahura believes Elder Ashton taught the doctrine of Christ incorrectly but I believe he is misunderstanding some of Elder Ashton’s words and in some cases describing the same principle but with different words. Who is right and who is wrong and who has the authority to adjudicate this matter?

I haven’t been here long but in my opinion it seems like Topcat may have some dissenting or nonconformist beliefs. Would the holding of dissenting or nonconformist beliefs be considered heretical or apostate? Possibly, but it would be up to others to adjudicate such matters. But I can still have my opinion on the matter. If I’m wrong please forgive my lack of understanding.

kittycat51 wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:44 am

Col. Flagg wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 8:24 am I'll tell you what an apostate is not... someone who has been a member of the church their whole life who's devoted countless hours of service, time and 10% of their income who learns about many troubling and disturbing aspects about its founder and history thanks to the information age who begins sharing that information in an attempt to expose truth as that same church is penning essays about those same troubling aspects and acknowledging them as being true when once considered 'anti-Mormon literature'.

Honest question: Have you left? Are you leaving? Why are you staying?

No, no and don't know?

There's a lot of good that can be done in teaching and guiding others, especially little children, to become like their Savior. The church is far too engrained in my wife and I to just walk away because we think, know or believe that it isn't what it claims to be.

“because we think, know or believe that it isn't what it claims to be.”

Stahura would this be considered a heretical statement?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 9:16 pm “because we think, know or believe that it isn't what it claims to be.”

Stahura would this be considered a heretical statement?

I don't think so .

When he says "WE", he means him and his wife.

He is saying that what him and has wife THINKS and maybe BELIEVES about the Church and it's church history isn't enough for them to make such a rash decision like leaving the church. I think, and I don't see that as heretical at all, in fact it's the opposite. A heretic would be positive that what they think is fact and would make a rash decision without further guidance.

It’s seems more like he is saying they think, know, and believe the church isn’t what it claims to be. The church claims to be “true”, whatever that means could be open to interpretation, and they know it isn’t what it claims to be.

They are willing to stay for other reasons but it would be reasonable to judge the quoted statement as heretical in nature; definitely questionable. The only way to answer those questions would be through further interview by those with the authority to conduct such an interview. Maybe such an interview could clarify that the perceived heretical statement meant what it seems to mean or means something else that is not heretical. But at face value it does appear heretical.

I think this contrasts the importance of the keys very well.

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

Here’s another from TPJS:

None, we presume, in this generation will pretend that he has the experience of Paul in building up the Church of Christ and yet, after his departure from the Church at Ephesus, many, even of the elders turned away from the truth; and what is almost always the case, sought to lead away disciples after them. Strange as it may appear at first thought, yet it is no less strange than true, that notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented,8 have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes.

Isn’t it an interesting thing that he says that apostates turn from their faith in Christ, yet strive to live godly lives? How is that? It’s because being part of the true fold of God is tied into one’s faith in Christ.

Are you saying that when they apostatize from the true fold of God they naturally, as an eventuality, turn from their faith in Christ as a result?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 10:47 pm Are you saying that when they apostatize from the true fold of God they naturally, as an eventuality, turn from their faith in Christ as a result?

Forget what I’m saying. What do you think it means?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 10:47 pm Are you saying that when they apostatize from the true fold of God they naturally, as an eventuality, turn from their faith in Christ as a result?

I think what that quote means is that as soon as they turn their faith from Christ(Him specifically, not his church), in spite of efforts to "live godly" they fall prey to the Adversary and lose the spirit.

I reread it like 15 times. The quote is a little confusing and I'm trying to see what Jonesy is getting at.

Jonesy wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 10:29 pm Here’s another from TPJS:

None, we presume, in this generation will pretend that he has the experience of Paul in building up the Church of Christ and yet, after his departure from the Church at Ephesus, many, even of the elders turned away from the truth; and what is almost always the case, sought to lead away disciples after them. Strange as it may appear at first thought, yet it is no less strange than true, that notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented,8 have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes.

Isn’t it an interesting thing that he says that apostates turn from their faith in Christ, yet strive to live godly lives? How is that? It’s because being part of the true fold of God is tied into one’s faith in Christ.

The above story fits quite nicely with our modern dilemma, just replace Paul with Joseph or Brigham or John or Wilford etc.
And that is exactly what has happened with "the true fold".

Here we are today arm and arm with Babylon and all her devices, completely immersed in the buy and sell to get gain. And now catering to sodomy, among other wickedness. And yet many say Christ approves???? I don't think so.
In fact that one sentence fits us perfectly, in "the true fold"...
" notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly"....
We are almost completely "ensnared by that wicked one".

From the TPJS it appears to say:

After turning from the faith of Christ they fell into the snares of the wicked one, were left without the Spirit of God, and at that point there wickedness was apparent to everyone.

But here is the question:

Did Joseph equate turning away from the truth with turning away from the Church of Christ that Paul had been building up?

Was turning away from the church, turning away from the truth, and turning from the faith of Christ all the same thing? In his mind was there no doubt that the truth and faith of Christ were all a part of and found within the Church of Christ. Could he conceive of a person turning from one of those without turning from the other? Therefore, the calling of them apostates.

Stahura, since this is the definitive anti-Mormon thread, would this be considered heretical. Not directly but through insinuation?

Here you go:

The above story fits quite nicely with our modern dilemma, just replace Paul with Joseph or Brigham or John or Wilford etc.
And that is exactly what has happened with "the true fold".

Here we are today arm and arm with Babylon and all her devices, completely immersed in the buy and sell to get gain. And now catering to sodomy, among other wickedness. And yet many say Christ approves???? I don't think so.
In fact that one sentence fits us perfectly, in "the true fold"...
" notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly"....
We are almost completely "ensnared by that wicked one".

I would call this heretical. It seems here the claim is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is almost completely ensnared by Lucifer himself. This would mean almost all of the leadership and it’s members are under his influence. If that is the current condition of the church then it would clearly no longer be the Savior’s.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 11:42 pm Stahura, since this is the definitive anti-Mormon thread, would this be considered heretical. Not directly but through insinuation?

Here you go:

The above story fits quite nicely with our modern dilemma, just replace Paul with Joseph or Brigham or John or Wilford etc.
And that is exactly what has happened with "the true fold".

Here we are today arm and arm with Babylon and all her devices, completely immersed in the buy and sell to get gain. And now catering to sodomy, among other wickedness. And yet many say Christ approves???? I don't think so.
In fact that one sentence fits us perfectly, in "the true fold"...
" notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly"....
We are almost completely "ensnared by that wicked one".

I would call this heretical. It seems here the claim is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is almost completely ensnared by Lucifer himself. This would mean almost all of the leadership and it’s members are under his influence. If that is the current condition of the church then it would clearly no longer be the Savior’s.

I’d say so

Stahura,

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is exactly what is happening in the Church.


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

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

Apostasy.

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any doubt?

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

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

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

Who says I speak lies in this comment? How?

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

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

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

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

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

The Church's very definition of apostasy is apostate.

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