LDS Freedom Forum

For those concerned that this forum has become anti-mormon or Apostate, here is your chance to voice your concerns and attack IDEAS . Tell us WHAT is apostate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Labels, labels, labels. The church's own history is anti-Mormon.

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

Okay, a couple things I want to say.
I AM NOT complaining about these posts and saying they should be "Disciplined".
I KNOW they are taken out of context, and in context the original comments they were referring to may very well have been legitimately apostate
I KNOW some of them were already "Disciplined" for posts like this.


The purpose of bringing them up is to show the kinds of posts that I'm talking about, and hopefully these people and people who think along the same lines as them can contribute.

These types of statements occur often, these people are quick to point out that certain PEOPLE are "Anti" or "Apostate" but they are extremely slow to point out which TEACHINGS are "Anti" or "Apostate".

I legitimately want to know, so please take a look at the questions I posted and let me know.

I am frequently accused (Usually in very passive manner) of being one of these "Anti's". I've posted almost 4000 times, so I really do want to know WHICH posts are perceived as apostate and "Anti".

Teancum wrote: ↑February 24th, 2019, 8:49 am I am thinking of several different people over the years, who may have said words that were true, yet their attitudes showed them to be of a rebellious or apostate or "anti" disposition.

eddie wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:38 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:00 pm
Please.. one of these days can someone show me these “antis”?

Who?
Where?
What’d they say?

Nobody gives examples.

Boogeyman.

Exhibit A

gardener4life wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 2:24 am I put this as a response to something an anti-Christ was writing in another area. I felt I should put it here, even though there's a 7 day fast from Satan's illusions.

I do this because I feel like people are leading people astray here. And there's a line in the sand. I don't feel like I can stay silent about the liars here and how this forum is becoming dominated by anti-Christs and apostates. This site is completely losing its purpose. I am thinking about if I should recommend telling people to go elsewhere.

Mark wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2018, 8:20 am There are a number of sites on the internet that exclusively attack the LDS church and its beliefs. That is the purpose of their site. Do I frequent these sites? No. Why? Because they are trying to destroy faith and subvert the mission of the church. I am not the least bit interested in participating in that goal. I go to LDS oriented sites because I do not need to be fed anti LDS garbage over and over again. If this site becomes predominately anti LDS I will be gone for good. There is just no redeeming value in participation in that kind of setting. If Brian's site becomes overrun with the fearlessfixer types who just want to attack the church and hurt it in any way they can he will see a withdrawal from active LDS people and it will just become just another anti LDS site to compete with the many others out there. It's his choice. He will live with the consequences if that occurs. I hope it doesn't..

SouEu wrote: ↑March 12th, 2019, 10:49 am My goodness Dusty52! The more I read your posts, the more you seem to have become "one of them". You seem to have gone totally apostate or even anti.

shadow wrote: ↑August 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm It's almost hard to watch some of you guys kick against the pricks. You only damage yourselves.

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote: ↑January 12th, 2019, 3:24 pm
This forum has come dangerously close to becoming itself an anti-Mormon site. Let that sink in!!!

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:37 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:00 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 11:38 am Does anyone know of any other message forums that don't have so many dissenting voices as this one? Not that I don't appreciate other perspectives but this forum seems to be tipping the scale on anti's on here. If anyone could give me a forum that would strengthen my faith I would greatly appreciate it.

Please.. one of these days can someone show me these “antis”?

Who?
Where?
What’d they say?

Nobody gives examples.

Boogeyman.

Maybe "hostiles" would be a better word for them. And no, I'm not going to name names because if you can't discern who they are there's no use telling you anyway.

Look
If you had
One shot
Or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
In one moment
Would you capture it
Or just let it slip?


Are Eminem references okay? I swear I haven’t listened to him since 2011

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

Is this post Anti?

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

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Frickety Ding!

I went and listened to Sister Eubank's great talk again from Sunday morning. What was notable was that she put the emphasis on JESUS CHRIST, without engaging in the circular authority references. She mentioned President Nelson, only, and how he encourages us to make and keep covenants. She didn't speak as a club member who basks in their authority. That's why her talk was like fresh air.

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

You can just as easily go through a bunch of threads and post what you think others might think are anti. Post those then lets talk about them if you'd like.

Why all the emphasis on who is an apostate/dissident/free-thinker etc at all? I love Mormonism because it leads me everytime to a PURE search for truth. Sometimes the truths are readily available and easily found in the doctrines themselves. Other truths are a bit more elusive and require AN INQUIRING MIND.....not just one who listens to others. I have found that this latter approach is a bit frowned upon in the culture of the church....but who cares? Am I an apostate if I disagree with something a general authority said? No. If I go about trashing that General Authority and the Church Leadership in general....then yeah, I am apostatizing. But I dont do that. I agree with pretty much all of the principles they teach, even if not exactly how to arrive at them. I am not a big believer in a bunch of law of Moses-esque rules.....I am much more driven by the spirit of these laws. I know when I need correcting and I know when I have the Spirit in my life. Mormonism is like playing a a fun game that never ends....it just gets more complicated and intricate and some players are happy to stay at certain levels and others are always pushing the boundaries of the game-logic....wanting to know how, and why, and by whom? I am one of the latter.....and Mormonism is the only religion on Earth that I have encountered that allows me the creativity to be that latter......even if sometimes the culture of the church frowns upon that.....to which I remember that the culture of Jesus' time and Joseph Smith's time frowned upon them too, so who am I to expect any different?

shadow wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:50 pm

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

You can just as easily go through a bunch of threads and post what you think others might think are anti. Post those then lets talk about them if you'd like.

I legitimately sincerely want to know.
Why do literally all of you refuse to explain what you believe to be anti when you’ve spent so much time calling others anti and apostate? It’s mildly infuriating.

“You’re apostate”
“What’d I say?”
“You know”

“He’s an apostate “
“Really? How?”
“You should be able to discern it yourself”

Honestly, stop crying about other people if you won’t take the opportunity to explain your thoughts and feelings when the opportunity is presented to you. I’m literally begging you guys to take this as a platform to voice your concern and explain them.

shadow wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:50 pm

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

You can just as easily go through a bunch of threads and post what you think others might think are anti. Post those then lets talk about them if you'd like.

Also if it isn’t implicit in my posts, all of the questions I posted in red are things that I think all these people think are apostate and anti comments, so I already did what you’re telling me to do.

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

I've been here a long time. Longer than most. I agree with those who say that the tone of the forum has changed to one that is apostate. I've been considering removing it permanently from my list of information gathering locations. I enjoy places where debate can be done, but I'm finding fewer and fewer interesting ideas or attitudes here.

With the general opinion out of the way, lets move onto the specifics.

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

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

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

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

This approach is apostate. It is not always apostate to disagree with a general authority. But when you go out of our way to show how they are wrong and holding up your understanding as the correct one - you are in error and on the wrong path. Not because what you say might be false - it may or may not be - but because this isn't the right way to go about it. Publicly condemning teachings of the Lord's leadership.

In order to sustain a fallible mortal as an inspired, divinely appointed messenger we need to offer them grace for their failings. When you consistently point to their failings you are not doing this. You are creating an antagonistic relationship between yourself and them. You are an accuser and have not mercy in your heart.

This has been shown in quote after quote and after quote that fault finding the leadership is a dangerous road and is one of the first signs of apostasy. Yet thread after thread in this forum is increasingly shortcoming, fault, error after purported shortcoming, fault, or error. Is it really so difficult to see?

Look at the thread you created right after conference.

"Doctrine of Christ taught incorrectly in General Conference"

I generally sympathize with your position but you spend more time trying to "fix" his error than in a genuine attempt at uplifting others. You probably view them as the same, but the intents and approaches are entirely different and with different outcomes. If someone finds themselves doubting the location of the iron rod because of your attitudes and pointing out of errors. Irreparable long term harm can be done to that soul. They lose their grip on the iron rod and are lost onto forbidden or unknown paths even if you "win the point".

People here teach things like "I don't need the church" when confronted with such potential for damage. This is the "I don't care about them" attitude towards the church. This is another prevalent attitude here and is also clearly apostate. Men are not intended to be alone or to act alone. It does happen among the righteous in this fallen world, but as a people it is not intended to be so. Instead of fracturing into a million individuals we are told we should be one. And the best way to do that is through a common leader, and in a temporal world that is through the appointed temporal leadership.

That is the general sum of what is happening here. I believe you can find the various individual examples on your own.

Lastly, if you reject the servants then how can you truly know the Master? The Church of Jesus Christ has the keys of the kingdom or it doesn't. It's leaders hold those keys or they don't. You're in the boat or you're out. There will be no fence sitters. Time to make your decisions and go your way.

AWESOME. I appreciate the post.

BackBlast wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 3:28 pm This approach is apostate. It is not always apostate to disagree with a general authority. But when you go out of our way to show how they are wrong and holding up your understanding as the correct one - you are in error and on the wrong path. Not because what you say might be false - it may or may not be - but because this isn't the right way to go about it. Publicly condemning teachings of the Lord's leadership.

In order to sustain a fallible mortal as an inspired, divinely appointed messenger we need to offer them grace for their failings. When you consistently point to their failings you are not doing this. You are creating an antagonistic relationship between yourself and them. You are an accuser and have not mercy in your heart.

Great, lets address this first then. I personally believe there are many instances where General Authorities can be objectively shown to have been in err, not leaning on anyone's personal understanding. In the grand scheme of things, lets suppose that the err of a General Authority causes some soul to believe something untrue. Is that not unbelief? While harboring unbelief, does this not effect your faith? Does your faith not effectuate your personal Salvation? With that line of reasoning, would it not be beneficial for that soul to be brought to the knowledge that they might shed that unbelief? It's been made clear that we are saved as fast as we acquire knowledge and cannot be saved in ignorance, so such a person won't get a simple pass because they were misguided. The blind leading the blind falls into the pit with the blind, Jesus made this clear in the New Testament. Both fall into the pit.
*DISCLAIMER: I'm not calling these GA's blind nor the members that sustain them(which includes myself), but you should get the meaning given the context

BackBlast wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 3:28 pm This has been shown in quote after quote and after quote that fault finding the leadership is a dangerous road and is one of the first signs of apostasy. Yet thread after thread in this forum is increasingly shortcoming, fault, error after purported shortcoming, fault, or error. Is it really so difficult to see?

It's not hard to see, but why do we have to assume that LITERALLY EVERY instance of "finding fault" is a sign of apostasy?
Bumps can be a sign of cancer, it can also be a cyst, or just swelling due to diet or from being struck.

And why do we have to call everything "finding fault"? If I see that you , BackBlast, taught something that seems to contradict what President Nelson or Nephi said and I approach you to discuss it(Assuming I do it without calling you names/blind/sheep and attacking you) , you would never say I was "Finding Fault" with you. In fact, you probably wouldn't put a label on it at all. Why does it suddenly become "Finding Fault" once it's a guy with a different calling than you?

BackBlast wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 3:28 pm Look at the thread you created right after conference.

"Doctrine of Christ taught incorrectly in General Conference"

I generally sympathize with your position but you spend more time trying to "fix" his error than in a genuine attempt at uplifting others. You probably view them as the same, but the intents and approaches are entirely different and with different outcomes. If someone finds themselves doubting the location of the iron rod because of your attitudes and pointing out of errors. Irreparable long term harm can be done to that soul. They lose their grip on the iron rod and are lost onto forbidden or unknown paths even if you "win the point".

I actually made that a few days before Conference about a talk from years ago, and I share other conference talks(and will share more) that teach the Doctrine CORRECTLY. But I digress.

You say the intents and approaches are entirely different with different outcomes. I don't know what the opposing intents would be? What do you think my intent is?
I believe that I laid out pretty clearly and objectively how his talk directly reversed the process that the scriptures teach. I did not slander or condemn him either.
I think a person probably hasn't even managed to grab hold of the iron rod(Even if they think they have) if they are teaching or believing something that directly reverses a process that the prophets of old preached. If they have grabbed ahold of the iron rod in that case, they don't know WHEN or HOW they actually did and will go and misguide others and in the end will have helped lead those souls away from Christ without realizing it.

A common statement I see from people is "maybe they aren't ready for this, it might shake their faith".
If we operate under the assumption that if you have not been Born of God, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God, and some soul has not been born of God because they have been taught INCORRECTLY how to be Born of God, would having their faith shaken really put them in a worse place than they were before having their faith shaken? Either way they are "heading towards the Terrestial Kingdom", but if their faith is shaken they are at least Shown something they might not have ever considered, something that will take them to the Celestial Kingdom.

BackBlast wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 3:28 pm People here teach things like "I don't need the church" when confronted with such potential for damage. This is the "I don't care about them" attitude towards the church. This is another prevalent attitude here and is also clearly apostate. Men are not intended to be alone or to act alone. It does happen among the righteous in this fallen world, but as a people it is not intended to be so. Instead of fracturing into a million individuals we are told we should be one. And the best way to do that is through a common leader, and in a temporal world that is through the appointed temporal leadership.

I understand this part. I think there are varying degrees of How much people think they need the church. My personal opinion is that to an extent, the Church and attendance are supposed to serve as a schoolmaster, one you should "Graduate" from, but I disagree that you should no longer attend church and should definitely continue living and obeying the things that got you there in the first place.

BackBlast wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 3:28 pm Lastly, if you reject the servants then how can you truly know the Master? The Church of Jesus Christ has the keys of the kingdom or it doesn't. It's leaders hold those keys or they don't. You're in the boat or you're out. There will be no fence sitters. Time to make your decisions and go your way.

"Rejects the servants".

What does it mean to reject the servant?
In attempting to correct what I believe to be errant Doctrine, am I rejecting him? I still raise my hand to sustain him and pray for him in his efforts to serve the body of the Church.

Anti: opposed to; against
Apostate: a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle

When assigning those terms to people, it is ad hominem attack (name-calling). In this context, it usually refers to anyone who doesn’t follow certain (lds) church leaders in word (who knows what everyone - including those calling names - actually does daily).

I occasionally visit other forums - including those that were like church (no freedom of speech), and was surprised how they have also become more open to different perspectives. It’s not just this forum. The www is making it difficult to avoid inconvenient truths. Some call these inconvenient truths “anti mormon” and if they show Mormonism in a bad light - then maybe they are - but that means some truth is anti-mormon.

Is it worse to be anti-mormon or anti-truth? What would Christ say, who stood and died for truth - even the inconvenient truths that religious leaders killed him for?

• "If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed."
  
  "If we are blindly to follow some one else we are not free agents..
  
  J Reuben Clark, Jr. proclaimed that there must be no forbidden questions in Mormonism.
  -J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years

The above was part of Clark’s faith crisis in which he came to decide that religion is inherently illogical but still valuable. It seems that he valued truth - both factual and spiritual. I hope I and everyone going through any quests for truth, will remember that there are different truths, factual and spiritual. And the goal is to have an eye single to God - that which is the highest GOoD, so take the best, leave the rest. We already do (to some extent) anyway.

It seems many of the proclaimed inconvenient truths are dubious at best based on the fact witness testimony is the worst type of evidence. Especially when discussing the statements of witnesses who are no longer alive and incapable of being cross examined. Some people may accept statements in regards to church history as the truth and theories arising from those conclusions as truth and that is their choice to do so. Some of us might look at those statements and think maybe it was or maybe it wasn’t true. Some of us have a strong inclination to be supportive of the church in the face of negative facts and look for justifications. Others have a strong inclination to approach the subject in a more adversarial manner, for whatever reason. Oh well, each to his own.

I would describe the approach some take on this forum as “critical”, but often entertaining from both sides. So keep up the good work!

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:59 pm

shadow wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:50 pm

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

You can just as easily go through a bunch of threads and post what you think others might think are anti. Post those then lets talk about them if you'd like.

I legitimately sincerely want to know.
Why do literally all of you refuse to explain what you believe to be anti when you’ve spent so much time calling others anti and apostate? It’s mildly infuriating.

“You’re apostate”
“What’d I say?”
“You know”

“He’s an apostate “
“Really? How?”
“You should be able to discern it yourself”

Honestly, stop crying about other people if you won’t take the opportunity to explain your thoughts and feelings when the opportunity is presented to you. I’m literally begging you guys to take this as a platform to voice your concern and explain them.

I've never called you an apostate so stop whining about it. That you'd start a thread on it is entertaining though. Here's an idea- if someone calls you an apostate then ask them why. If you see that someone calls someone else an apostate then ask them why. It'll usually be pretty easy to point out if you do it that way. Apparently this happens all the time so it shouldn't take long. This way you'll have the context and everything. What a great idea. Wipe your tears and think about something else until you're triggered by a specific post. Deal with it at that point.

I'll start an LDSFF fundraiser account for your counseling if Brian OK's it.

shadow wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 5:11 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:59 pm

shadow wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:50 pm

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

You can just as easily go through a bunch of threads and post what you think others might think are anti. Post those then lets talk about them if you'd like.

I legitimately sincerely want to know.
Why do literally all of you refuse to explain what you believe to be anti when you’ve spent so much time calling others anti and apostate? It’s mildly infuriating.

“You’re apostate”
“What’d I say?”
“You know”

“He’s an apostate “
“Really? How?”
“You should be able to discern it yourself”

Honestly, stop crying about other people if you won’t take the opportunity to explain your thoughts and feelings when the opportunity is presented to you. I’m literally begging you guys to take this as a platform to voice your concern and explain them.

I've never called you an apostate so stop whining about it. That you'd start a thread on it is entertaining though. Here's an idea- if someone calls you an apostate then ask them why. If you see that someone calls someone else an apostate then ask them why. It'll usually be pretty easy to point out if you do it that way. Apparently this happens all the time so it shouldn't take long. This way you'll have the context and everything. What a great idea. Wipe your tears and think about something else until you're triggered by a specific post. Deal with it at that point.

I'll start an LDSFF fundraiser account for your counseling if Brian OK's it.

This isn't about me, the last time I personally was explicitly labeled as such was like a year ago. I made this in response to another thread that's not about me. It's also not about you specifically, it's about you generally, aka the people like you think this forum is anti-mormon but never actually explain yourselves when pressed.

I have asked them why, they never explain.
Either they say nothing, or they make comments like

"If you can't discern it, it's a waste of time anyway"
Or like Eddie said, "Exhibit A"
Examples are posted below.

They IMPLY that someone, maybe myself, maybe Lizzy, maybe someone who no longer posts, but they never explain when asked to explain. Hence why I created this thread. As i stated before, literally every chance I've had, I've asked people directly WHY, WHO , WHERE. Nothing. Here's your chance, I'm waiting.

I'm not looking to argue, look at my response to BackBlast. I want legitimate back and forth.
*Crickets*

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:37 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:00 pm

Please.. one of these days can someone show me these “antis”?

Who?
Where?
What’d they say?

Nobody gives examples.

Boogeyman.

Maybe "hostiles" would be a better word for them. And no, I'm not going to name names because if you can't discern who they are there's no use telling you anyway.

eddie wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:38 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 12:00 pm
Please.. one of these days can someone show me these “antis”?

Who?
Where?
What’d they say?

Nobody gives examples.

Boogeyman.

Exhibit A

Why were you labeled an apostate a year ago? How would you describe yourself?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 5:32 pm Why were you labeled an apostate a year ago? How would you describe yourself?

I don’t know, as I’ve been explaining, people that have labeled or implied that certain people are Anti don’t like to explain how that person is anti/apostate.

The questions in red in the OP are things that I think some people find apostate , but they’ve yet to say so.

In the past, I can only imagine it occurred because of what I have to say about the Doctrine of Christ. They think it strange and wonder why it’s not discussed in Church the same way I discuss it. There are plenty of people that say exactly what I do, there are hundreds of my posts you can filter through by doing an advanced search of “Baptism of Fire” “Born of God” and similar terms to see what I’m talking about.

If you’ve read John Pontius books, you can sum up what I believe with what you see in his books.

Im an active member with a temple recommend, I watch every General Conference, I’ve sustained every GA in my lifetime, I also believe that we as a people have watered down the Doctrine of Christ and become complacent, that we have an attitude of “all is well”, and my only desire is to help people Recieve the Holy Ghost and taste of the joy that I have.

I don’t believe that believing we as a people have watered down the Doctrine of Christ and become complacent is grounds for being called apostate.

What would you consider a correct understanding of the Doctrine of Christ? Is it very complicated and difficult to explain? What are the major mistakes people are making that you would consider a watering down?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 6:25 pm I don’t believe that believing we as a people have watered down the Doctrine of Christ and become complacent is grounds for being called apostate.

What would you consider a correct understanding of the Doctrine of Christ? Is it very complicated and difficult to explain? What are the major mistakes people are making that you would consider a watering down?

If it was complicated and difficult, I would be looking beyond the mark!
The Doctrine of Christ is how we can receive personal redemption through our Savior Jesus Christ by being sanctified, which happens as a result of Faith which brings a full remission of sins(Not partial). Once this has occurred and if you Endure to the End, you can enter the Kingdom of God.

By water baptism, you show God that you are willing to obey his commandments. When you have truly repented and become sufficiently submissive and humble to God, the Spirit brings you lower, it helps you realize how much you depend on Jesus Christ. This humility, combined with the faith you exercised to get to that point causes the Spirit to justify your works, and you are filled with Fire and Holy Ghost and are filled with inexplicable joy and fire. This is the moment you are Born of God, you have received a Full Remission of sins, you have received Grace. At this point, you have merely entered in by the way, it's only the beginning. To endure to the end, you must repeat what you did to get there in the first place.

The mistakes I see are small misunderstandings. Many believe you are born again after water baptism. Although this MAY happen, it would be because you happened to be baptized by fire during the water baptism, not BECAUSE of the water baptism. It is the Holy Ghost that brings the remission of sins.

Another mistake is this idea that you are "born again" over time. I've discussed this elsewhere in detail, but that shouldn't be necessary. Logic dictates that although Child Birth is a process, the process has a climax, which is the actual birth of the child, an actual event.

Great effort has been made on this forum, and in some General Conference talks to convince members that Sanctification for most people will not occur in a single event, but over time. Although I want this to be true, it's not anywhere in the scriptures. Story after story after story in the Book of Mormon lay out single events in which the people were Born of God. I say it's better safe than sorry, you don't lose anything in trying to seek Christ, in trying to seek manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps the most damaging teaching is that you have received the Holy Ghost immediately upon Confirmation. This CAN happen, but I've found that for most people it comes later in life. You must seek it! Many stubbornly refuse to accept that they might not have received it at that time. Maybe they did, but again, maybe they didn't. What harm will it do to seek Christ and receive more of his Spirit?

In another thread I laid out how a General Authority reversed the process of the Doctrine of Christ, I included scriptures and conference quotes to explain this.

What Elder Ashton here is suggesting is this:
A: You receive The Holy Ghost
B: This reception Builds your Faith
C: You receive The Holy Ghost to a greater degree over time
D: This process over time leads you to being Born Again

it should be

A: You exercise Faith
B: Your unshaken faith results in the Reception of the Holy Ghost
C: Having truly received the Holy Ghost, you have been Born Again
D: You can now gain a greater portion of the Spirit of the Lord

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=51249

Elder Ashton does seem to indicate being born again is a process. He says receiving the Holy Ghost to a greater degree further moves us along the path of being born again. That is not the same as saying the process over time leads you to being born again. Would it be accurate to say if you are on the path he describes then you are “reborn”, even though there is more path to follow or a process that will continue.

How would you define justification versus sanctification? With some people can justification be reached by faith, repentance, and baptism, which qualifies one for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but sanctification by the Holy Ghost come at some later time, maybe not even in this life, but we are on the path?

Now that I look at it more it kinda seems like you and Elder Ashton are saying the same thing but with different words.

He says receiving the Holy Ghost to a greater degree further moves us along the path of being born again.

It seems as if you would call this gaining a greater portion of the Spirit of the Lord.

Now I'm not so sure many here are truly anti or apostate but I do find it odd that so many who claim to love Christ and to love people who love him and who claim to be his true disciples that after a conference that is completely centered on Christ, from every song, prayer and talk hardly any mention or appreciation for what was shared about Christ. Not hardly a comment? Rather an attempt to avoid or focus on something cynical or unimportant about the conference. Is that odd?

Also claims that people who enjoy hearing messages about Christ from these men are pharisaical, participating in hero worship, and blindly following man. Something doesn't smell right in Denmark.