Can you concede this? Social Experiment.

[topcat]

I'm gonna do a little social experiment, if you will. I want to see if Mormons who profess to be committed to the doctrine of Christ, will make a concession (or two) right here out in the open. The examples offered are plain facts, but the person's courage (in the face of social pressure) and humility (ability to even consider the question) will be tested. Let's see how this turns out. There are lessons we all can learn from how folks respond. And the basic doctrine of Christ will be put to the test-- whether you will honor it, or not.

When there is a debate, and what is truth is the debate, and there are two opposing sides, what should we make of the side that never concedes, never says "good point", never acknowledges facts that are indisputable? What should we say about the side who does this?

How can you (the reader of this forum) expect to ever arrive at truth if you don't humbly concede facts which may seem to oppose your belief? This self-reflecting question applies to me, you, and everybody.

As an investigator to the claims of Joseph Smith 30 years ago to this very month(!), I had to concede some things:

1) The Mormon Church might have a true message that came from God. That destroyed my belief that such truth existed on earth.
2) That there was a true American prophet named Joseph Smith. Such an idea was fantastic, it was out in left field.
3) That I needed to repent and be baptized by immersion in water to show my willingness to follow God. I didn't believe this.
4) And a host of other things that challenged my long-held belief system.

Instead of railing against and mocking ideas that opposed my beliefs, I had to give them a chance, I had to have an open mind. The doctrine of Christ's 5th tenet (3 Nephi 11) is to "become as a little child". THAT is what I was required to do. And that I did.

I humbled myself to the dust. The result was great outpourings of the Spirit (Truth) into my soul, which led to me KNOWING God lived, and that the BoM was true.

In my many debates with folks here, I'm not sure I can think of an example of a TBM who has done this; in other words, who has conceded ANYTHING.

I could give dozens of examples where an obvious and forthright concession is appropriate, but here is a small sampling:

1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation. It's subject to the federal gov't. Meaning, it's MASTER is the gov't. If the owners of the corporation (which is remarkably just one man, the president) wish to keep the corporate charter, it must not upset its master. This clearly is a conflict of interest with the Lord. Do you concede there is a conflict of interest? Which of you TBM's will concede this point? When the gov't requires something that conflicts with the Lord, might the leaders of the corporation (the apostles) bow to the creator of the corporation instead of bowing to the will of God?

2) The top leaders (let's just say the apostles, though there are lots and lots of paid ministers incl mission presidents and seventies, etc.) are paid with a salary and perks. Conflict of interest with the Lord? Could what their corporate boss thinks about the employee's actions or speeches have any influence on what the employee says or does? Perhaps there's a conflict of interest? Concession here?

3) There were some Wilford Woodruff speech excerpts from 1890 added to OD1 in 1981 without an announcement or vote. The famous "The Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" false teaching was canonized. Again, with ZERO announcement nor vote. Do YOU concede this was 100% out of line procedurally?

4) Do you concede neither OD 1 nor OD2 are "revelations"? Keep in mind they are actually called "Declarations", as in Official DECLARATION, and they are not part of the "SECTIONS" of the D&C. Do you concede the content are not "revelations"?

5) Do you concede that if the 1981-added part that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is nonsense, and even anti Christ, in that it teaches the principle that God will violate free agency of the president, and that it encourages members to place their faith in the president rather than the Lord? Do you concede ANY of these points? Or do you want to justify the secret addition in 1981?

6) Polygamy. Do you concede Joseph and Emma may have been telling the truth and that he was having sex with only his wife, Emma, whom he said was his ONLY wife, and that he condemned having more than one wife? I am asking if you will concede this MIGHT be true?

7) Do you concede that if the BoM is true (and it is, I testify in the name of Christ), that does NOT equate to presidents AFTER Joseph Smith being true prophets, like Joseph was? In other words, it's a total logical fallacy for the Church leaders to prop up by incessant repetition that just because the BoM is true, that EVERYTHING current Church leaders say is the gospel truth. Do you concede this idea?


I could go on and on with more examples where an impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions.

And yet, this forum seems to be bereft of TBM's who make ANY such concessions. Does an unwillingness to concede even these examples I give above say anything about the sincere willingness of that non-conceding person to accept truth?

Even now, in this thread, how many of the TBM's here are courageous enough to say, "Topcat, I concede every one of the examples you list above"? I do say it takes courage to make concessions. It takes humility.

Are none of you willing to humble yourself and concede the obvious? Are you afraid you'll be viewed by your peers as "apostate", or as doubting, etc.? Are you worried more about what your TBM peers will think of you then what God thinks of you? Are you concerned in the least bit about arriving at truth? Or do you just want to defend your belief system, as a rule, that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious facts that would cause you intense cognitive dissonance?

There are so many scriptures that teach us how we should be humble and easy to be entreated. I love Alma 32's message, which directly applies to the investigator of truth. Note that the so-called religious people (those who owned the synagogues) were literally casting out or denying the poor to enter their buildings! They were casting out the humble. Do you concede that was wrong of the Zoramites to do that? The JST of Matthew 6:25 says:

“And again I say unto you, Go into the world and do not care for the world, for the world will hate you and will persecute you and will turn you out of their synagogues.

Just because the corporate owners of the synagogues of our day may hate you and persecute you for making these obvious concessions, will you allow them to dictate what you think? Will you allow your thought to be controlled by those who will withdraw their love from you for making such concessions? Is their love and support of you more important than God's?

So here's your chance. If you're a TBM and you wish to courageously and humbly make a concession of facts that may strike at the foundation of your belief system / tradition, then please demonstrate it here. I'm hopeful that some of you are up to the challenge. Or will you close ranks and stick to never conceding obvious facts?

[Thinker]

I concede, that the church is actually a corporation, which leaders do have conflict of interest, all fallible church leaders can & do lead astray, (not sure but don’t care about polygamy past) & nothing should be taken on blind faith. Take truth of the book of Mormon, bible, science, philosophy etc - and discern human imperfections that sneak in.

It’s also important to remember it’s not all-or-nothing. The church offers an unbeatable sense of community, and regular encouragement to be better people. But it also hurts people financially and psychologically/spiritually. “There must needs be opposition in all things.”

[topcat]

I concede, that the church is actually a corporation, which leaders do have conflict of interest, all fallible church leaders can & do lead astray, (not sure but don’t care about polygamy past) & nothing should be taken on blind faith. Take truth of the book of Mormon, bible, science, philosophy etc - and discern human imperfections that sneak in.

It’s also important to remember it’s not all-or-nothing. The church offers an unbeatable sense of community, and regular encouragement to be better people. But it also hurts people financially and psychologically/spiritually. “There must needs be opposition in all things.”

The community aspect of the Church I absolutely love. It may be unbeatable. Idk. Haven't explored other options. But through the years have loved the community aspect, and the opportunity to serve others through home teaching, quorums, etc.

[JK4Woods]

I concede.
Eyes wide open.
Yet am a TBM...

[eddie]

I don't like the word " Concede." Are these men mortals and fallible, of course. Is this Church a Corporation, NO. We have a corporation,that is taxed and used for investments, it's the smart thing to do, and no amount of criticism stops them. I love that! Mesa Arizona Temple is being re-vamped with a Mall among other things. Apparently the Church hasn't lost money from their investing, we just keep building Temples and investing.
This Church is not a charity, we are a church. We have buildings to maintain and build, materials to print, Missionaries to help, and of course the millions given for relief to the poor and down trodden. Would it ever be enough for some people, do they always seem to know a better way? And yet most of them cannot even manage their own finances let alone manage and maintain this Church. I take no creed in them or their opinions. This Church is prospering and will continue to prosper!
I concede nothing, Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, this Church will not fail, and I sustain our Prophet and Apostles. Period. Done.

[topcat]

I don't like the word " Concede." Are these men mortals and fallible, of course. Is this Church a Corporation, NO. We have a corporation,that is taxed and used for investments, it's the smart thing to do, and no amount of criticism stops them. I love that! Mesa Arizona Temple is being re-vamped with a Mall among other things. Apparently the Church hasn't lost money from their investing, we just keep building Temples and investing.
This Church is not a charity, we are a church. We have buildings to maintain and build, materials to print, Missionaries to help, and of course the millions given for relief to the poor and down trodden. Would it ever be enough for some people, do they always seem to know a better way? And yet most of them cannot even manage their own finances let alone manage and maintain this Church. I take no creed in them or their opinions. This Church is prospering and will continue to prosper!
I concede nothing, Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, this Church will not fail, and I sustain our Prophet and Apostles. Period. Done.

Spoken with the gusto I've become accustomed to witnessing.

You naturally don't like the word "concede". Have you thought about why you have a dislike for that word?

You see no conflict of interest (stay out of trouble with the government or say the truth, even if the government comes after the corp) for a corporation's leaders that must submit to its creator, the government, or risk losing its charter?

[eddie]

I don't like the word " Concede." Are these men mortals and fallible, of course. Is this Church a Corporation, NO. We have a corporation,that is taxed and used for investments, it's the smart thing to do, and no amount of criticism stops them. I love that! Mesa Arizona Temple is being re-vamped with a Mall among other things. Apparently the Church hasn't lost money from their investing, we just keep building Temples and investing.
This Church is not a charity, we are a church. We have buildings to maintain and build, materials to print, Missionaries to help, and of course the millions given for relief to the poor and down trodden. Would it ever be enough for some people, do they always seem to know a better way? And yet most of them cannot even manage their own finances let alone manage and maintain this Church. I take no creed in them or their opinions. This Church is prospering and will continue to prosper!
I concede nothing, Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, this Church will not fail, and I sustain our Prophet and Apostles. Period. Done.

Spoken with the gusto I've become accustomed to witnessing.

You naturally don't like the word "concede". Have you thought about why you have a dislike for that word?

You see no conflict of interest (stay out of trouble with the government or say the truth, even if the government comes after the corp) for a corporation's leaders that must submit to its creator, the government, or risk losing its charter?

I am laughing about the gusto remark!

Staying our of trouble with the government or say the truth? You are speaking out of school, you are speculating. And here goes the gusto, these are brillant men, they run this Church, and you don't. They are doing a fine job, this Church is a class act, I am happy to be a part of it.

[Englebert]

This Church is prospering and will continue to prosper!
I concede nothing, Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, this Church will not fail, and I sustain our Prophet and Apostles. Period. Done.

This really struck me, having just read Mosiah 12:15
"And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper."

If you meant to quote scripture, I think you chose poorly. If you didn't mean to quote scripture, you might want to check that sentiment.

[Yahtzee]

Am I still a TBM anymore? I'm not sure. But because I have often thought of myself as one I'm annoyed at the baited approach and want to respond.
If any TBMs don't respond it may be because of the approach. I do not feel invited into dialogue. I feel like you're asking for a fight in order to prove something. I generally avoid such threads.
But, I will answer. Many of those I'd simply say, "hmmm. I need to think about that. " Because I simply haven't given them much thought. I shrug at all things polygamy because I think we're missing a lot of information. And I think historical precedence shows prophets are fallible so we all need the spirit to help us discern all things they say.
But I'll not concede #1. I believe the COJCOLDS is the Lord's church. And the Corporation of the President is subject to the government. And I am uncomfortable with some of the ways they mingle, but not all of them. Much good comes from how it is run, regardless of it's flaws.

[topcat]

This Church is prospering and will continue to prosper!
I concede nothing, Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, this Church will not fail, and I sustain our Prophet and Apostles. Period. Done.

This really struck me, having just read Mosiah 12:15
"And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper."

If you meant to quote scripture, I think you chose poorly. If you didn't mean to quote scripture, you might want to check that sentiment.

As I said in the opening post, we shall learn things from the responses gathered here. You just nailed a huge lesson. The other guy doesn't see it though.

[topcat]

Am I still a TBM anymore? I'm not sure. But because I have often thought of myself as one I'm annoyed at the baited approach and want to respond.
If any TBMs don't respond it may be because of the approach. I do not feel invited into dialogue. I feel like you're asking for a fight in order to prove something. I generally avoid such threads.
But, I will answer. Many of those I'd simply say, "hmmm. I need to think about that. " Because I simply haven't given them much thought. I shrug at all things polygamy because I think we're missing a lot of information. And I think historical precedence shows prophets are fallible so we all need the spirit to help us discern all things they say.
But I'll not concede #1. I believe the COJCOLDS is the Lord's church. And the Corporation of the President is subject to the government. And I am uncomfortable with some of the ways they mingle, but not all of them. Much good comes from how it is run, regardless of it's flaws.

I don't want to fight. I want to let the responses speak for themselves.

Your response:

I believe the COJCOLDS is the Lord's church. And the Corporation of the President is subject to the government. And I am uncomfortable with some of the ways they mingle, but not all of them.

What makes you uncomfortable? Care to share an example or two, which undoubtedly will deal with the conflict of interest?

And I agree, I feel very uncomfortable about that too.

[Yahtzee]

Am I still a TBM anymore? I'm not sure. But because I have often thought of myself as one I'm annoyed at the baited approach and want to respond.
If any TBMs don't respond it may be because of the approach. I do not feel invited into dialogue. I feel like you're asking for a fight in order to prove something. I generally avoid such threads.
But, I will answer. Many of those I'd simply say, "hmmm. I need to think about that. " Because I simply haven't given them much thought. I shrug at all things polygamy because I think we're missing a lot of information. And I think historical precedence shows prophets are fallible so we all need the spirit to help us discern all things they say.
But I'll not concede #1. I believe the COJCOLDS is the Lord's church. And the Corporation of the President is subject to the government. And I am uncomfortable with some of the ways they mingle, but not all of them. Much good comes from how it is run, regardless of it's flaws.

I don't want to fight. I want to let the responses speak for themselves.

Your response:

I believe the COJCOLDS is the Lord's church. And the Corporation of the President is subject to the government. And I am uncomfortable with some of the ways they mingle, but not all of them.

What makes you uncomfortable? Care to share an example or two, which undoubtedly will deal with the conflict of interest?

And I agree, I feel very uncomfortable about that too.

Thank you. I could just be feeling defensive today.
Deseret Book and all things associated with it make me very uncomfortable. I really dislike the practical worship of the brethren it elicits in order to make money.
Some of the things I've seen with my husbands employment have really upset me. Sorry, no details except where ones rank/salary is equated with personal worthiness.

[eddie]

This Church is prospering and will continue to prosper!
I concede nothing, Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, this Church will not fail, and I sustain our Prophet and Apostles. Period. Done.

This really struck me, having just read Mosiah 12:15
"And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper."

If you meant to quote scripture, I think you chose poorly. If you didn't mean to quote scripture, you might want to check that sentiment.

Could you explain further, I did not quote a scripture. And you might be the one who needs to check sentiment...

[eddie]

Is the Mormon Church just a big financial empire?
Is the Mormon Church just a big financial empire?

"No, it's a large religious organization with significant material needs: there are buildings to be built and maintained for worship, books and manuals to be printed and distributed worldwide, missions to operate, broadcasts to deliver, and so forth. (It even occasionally needs lawyers in this litigious era.) All of these require the use of tangible assets. They require money and properties. To ensure that the Church can continue operating even when there are downturns in the economy, it is important to convert a portion of Church income into investments that can be used in the future. To not save and not seek return on savings through investment would be utter foolishness and a violation of basic principles of financial responsibility. (For further perspectives, see the following question.)

The Church is a charitable and a religious organization. It exists to bless the lives of the world and to bring people to Christ. But this can't be done for free, without tangible assets and genuine expenses."

Jeff Lindsay

[topcat]

Is the Mormon Church just a big financial empire?
Is the Mormon Church just a big financial empire?

"No, it's a large religious organization with significant material needs: there are buildings to be built and maintained for worship, books and manuals to be printed and distributed worldwide, missions to operate, broadcasts to deliver, and so forth. (It even occasionally needs lawyers in this litigious era.) All of these require the use of tangible assets. They require money and properties. To ensure that the Church can continue operating even when there are downturns in the economy, it is important to convert a portion of Church income into investments that can be used in the future. To not save and not seek return on savings through investment would be utter foolishness and a violation of basic principles of financial responsibility. (For further perspectives, see the following question.)

The Church is a charitable and a religious organization. It exists to bless the lives of the world and to bring people to Christ. But this can't be done for free, without tangible assets and genuine expenses."

Jeff Lindsay

The Lord needs an organization with leaders and a hierarchy and expenses to bless people and bring them to Him? He can't successfully do this outside of an organization with tangible assets?

[Jonesy]

I'm gonna do a little social experiment, if you will. I want to see if Mormons who profess to be committed to the doctrine of Christ, will make a concession (or two) right here out in the open. The examples offered are plain facts, but the person's courage (in the face of social pressure) and humility (ability to even consider the question) will be tested. Let's see how this turns out. There are lessons we all can learn from how folks respond. And the basic doctrine of Christ will be put to the test-- whether you will honor it, or not.

1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation. It's subject to the federal gov't. Meaning, it's MASTER is the gov't. If the owners of the corporation (which is remarkably just one man, the president) wish to keep the corporate charter, it must not upset its master. This clearly is a conflict of interest with the Lord. Do you concede there is a conflict of interest? Which of you TBM's will concede this point? When the gov't requires something that conflicts with the Lord, might the leaders of the corporation (the apostles) bow to the creator of the corporation instead of bowing to the will of God?

2) The top leaders (let's just say the apostles, thought there are lots and lots of paid ministers incl mission presidents and seventies, etc.) are paid with a salary and perks. Conflict of interest with the Lord? Could what their corporate boss thinks about the employee's actions or speeches have any influence on what the employee says or does? Perhaps there's a conflict of interest? Concession here?

3) There were some Wilford Woodruff speech excerpts from 1890 added to OD1 in 1981 without an announcement or vote. The famous "The Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" false teaching was canonized. Again, with ZERO announcement nor vote. Do YOU concede this was 100% out of line procedurally?

4) Do you concede neither OD 1 nor OD2 are "revelations"? Keep in mind they are actually called "Declarations", as in Official DECLARATION, and they are not part of the "SECTIONS" of the D&C. Do you concede the content are not "revelations"?

5) Do you concede that if the 1981-added part that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is nonsense, and even anti Christ, in that it teaches the principle that God will violate free agency of the president, and that it encourages members to place their faith in the president rather than the Lord? Do you concede ANY of these points? Or do you want to justify the secret addition in 1981?

6) Polygamy. Do you concede Joseph and Emma may have been telling the truth and that he was having sex with only his wife, Emma, whom he said was his ONLY wife, and that he condemned having more than one wife? I am asking if you will concede this MIGHT be true?

7) Do you concede that if the BoM is true (and it is, I testify in the name of Christ), that does NOT equate to presidents AFTER Joseph Smith being true prophets, like Joseph was? In other words, it's a total logical fallacy for the Church leaders to prop up by incessant repetition that just because the BoM is true, that EVERYTHING current Church leaders say is the gospel truth. Do you concede this idea?


I could go on and on with more examples where an impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions.

And yet, this forum seems to be bereft of TBM's who make ANY such concessions. Does an unwillingness to concede even these examples I give above say anything about the sincere willingness of that non-conceding person to accept truth?

Even now, in this thread, how many of the TBM's here are courageous enough to say, "Topcat, I concede every one of the examples you list above"? I do say it takes courage to make concessions. It takes humility.

Just because the corporate owners of the synagogues of our day may hate you and persecute you for making these obvious concessions, will you allow them to dictate what you think? Will you allow your thought to be controlled by those who will withdraw their love from you for making such concessions? Is their love and support of you more important than God's?

I have to be frank, the OP comes across as a little disingenuous and as bit of a tactic. And I hope this doesn’t come across as contentious. Neither do I desire a debate. But there’s a touting of “obvious facts” that required you to humble yourself to the dust. You offer this as my chance? Is it courageous if I don’t concede because of my difference of belief? “An impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions”?

I see it in this life that there is an opposition in all things, and we must also walk by faith. Is truth so black and white without the walk of faith and discernment? I’m believing more and more that even prophets look through a glass, darkly; and although we have rock-solid pillars of truth, the rest of what we have we are left to piece by our best use of what God has granted us. There’s just so much we don’t know. I don’t know if I consider myself a TBM, but I’m pretty sure there are people who would call me one, which is fine.

Anyways! Here are my answers:

1. The Church is a corporation. But the church is also the true body of believers.

2. Yes, it appears that the Apostles have some kind of financial backing.

3. I don’t know. You could be right.

4. You’re probably right. It appears to be canonized declarations.

5. As long as the Brethren have the keys, which I believe they do, then it is true that they would keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold. That’s what I get from it. But the saints must be real, born-again saints.

6. Might be true. I believe there is an understanding of a law that Joseph lived that has been lost to us in our day.

7. Sure, but I don’t think they expect us to take everything they say as gospel truth. The Spirit has always been taught as the variable that allows the duty devolving upon the saints.

I don’t know if these are acceptable answers for you, but I hope you may consider as well.

[SJR3t2]

You have been oppressed by King Brigham.

Mosiah (LDS 23:12-14) (RLDS 11:12-15)
12 And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by king Noah, and have been in bondage to him and his priests, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity. 13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. 14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

https://seekingyhwh.com/2017/07/04/king-brigham/

[eddie]

SEEKING YHWH
MOSIAH 18:13 AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD WAS UPON HIM, AND HE SAID: HELAM, I BAPTIZE THEE, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM THE ALMIGHTY GOD, AS A TESTIMONY THAT YE HAVE ENTERED INTO A COVENANT TO SERVE HIM UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD AS TO THE MORTAL BODY; AND MAY THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BE POURED OUT UPON YOU; AND MAY HE GRANT UNTO YOU ETERNAL LIFE, THROUGH THE REDEMPTION OF CHRIST, WHOM HE HAS PREPARED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Search …
ABOUT
I believe that Jesus is our Savior. That He called Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient record written by ancient prophets. I grew up LDS but after I found out that the LDS church changes doctrines despite the fact they say they don't God told me to remove my name from their records.

If you are interested you can find my resignation letter here https://seekingyhwh.com/2015/01/18/lds- ... on-letter/ .

Russell M. Nelson Talk

Such contentious spirits are not new. In an epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul gave this warning, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Tim. 6:1.)

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to [his] doctrine … doting about questions and strifes of words, … supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3–5; see also Isa. 29:21; 2 Ne. 27:32; D&C 19:30; D&C 38:41; D&C 60:14.)

Dissecting doctrine in a controversial way in order to draw attention to oneself is not pleasing to the Lord. He declared:

“Bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

“And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:62–63.)

[topcat]

SEEKING YHWH
MOSIAH 18:13 AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD WAS UPON HIM, AND HE SAID: HELAM, I BAPTIZE THEE, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM THE ALMIGHTY GOD, AS A TESTIMONY THAT YE HAVE ENTERED INTO A COVENANT TO SERVE HIM UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD AS TO THE MORTAL BODY; AND MAY THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BE POURED OUT UPON YOU; AND MAY HE GRANT UNTO YOU ETERNAL LIFE, THROUGH THE REDEMPTION OF CHRIST, WHOM HE HAS PREPARED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Search …
ABOUT
I believe that Jesus is our Savior. That He called Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient record written by ancient prophets. I grew up LDS but after I found out that the LDS church changes doctrines despite the fact they say they don't God told me to remove my name from their records.

If you are interested you can find my resignation letter here https://seekingyhwh.com/2015/01/18/lds- ... on-letter/ .

Russell M. Nelson Talk

Such contentious spirits are not new. In an epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul gave this warning, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Tim. 6:1.)

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to [his] doctrine … doting about questions and strifes of words, … supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3–5; see also Isa. 29:21; 2 Ne. 27:32; D&C 19:30; D&C 38:41; D&C 60:14.)

Dissecting doctrine in a controversial way in order to draw attention to oneself is not pleasing to the Lord. He declared:

“Bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

“And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:62–63.)

Eddie,

You're not the one who resigned, are you?

Could you please clarify the point of your comment above?

Thank you.

[eddie]

SEEKING YHWH
MOSIAH 18:13 AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD WAS UPON HIM, AND HE SAID: HELAM, I BAPTIZE THEE, HAVING AUTHORITY FROM THE ALMIGHTY GOD, AS A TESTIMONY THAT YE HAVE ENTERED INTO A COVENANT TO SERVE HIM UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD AS TO THE MORTAL BODY; AND MAY THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BE POURED OUT UPON YOU; AND MAY HE GRANT UNTO YOU ETERNAL LIFE, THROUGH THE REDEMPTION OF CHRIST, WHOM HE HAS PREPARED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Search …
ABOUT
I believe that Jesus is our Savior. That He called Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient record written by ancient prophets. I grew up LDS but after I found out that the LDS church changes doctrines despite the fact they say they don't God told me to remove my name from their records.

If you are interested you can find my resignation letter here https://seekingyhwh.com/2015/01/18/lds- ... on-letter/ .

Russell M. Nelson Talk

Such contentious spirits are not new. In an epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul gave this warning, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Tim. 6:1.)

“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to [his] doctrine … doting about questions and strifes of words, … supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3–5; see also Isa. 29:21; 2 Ne. 27:32; D&C 19:30; D&C 38:41; D&C 60:14.)

Dissecting doctrine in a controversial way in order to draw attention to oneself is not pleasing to the Lord. He declared:

“Bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

“And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:62–63.)

Eddie,

You're not the one who resigned, are you?

Could you please clarify the point of your comment above?

Thank you.

No, I see now where that is confusing. Not me!

[topcat]

I'm gonna do a little social experiment, if you will. I want to see if Mormons who profess to be committed to the doctrine of Christ, will make a concession (or two) right here out in the open. The examples offered are plain facts, but the person's courage (in the face of social pressure) and humility (ability to even consider the question) will be tested. Let's see how this turns out. There are lessons we all can learn from how folks respond. And the basic doctrine of Christ will be put to the test-- whether you will honor it, or not.

1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation. It's subject to the federal gov't. Meaning, it's MASTER is the gov't. If the owners of the corporation (which is remarkably just one man, the president) wish to keep the corporate charter, it must not upset its master. This clearly is a conflict of interest with the Lord. Do you concede there is a conflict of interest? Which of you TBM's will concede this point? When the gov't requires something that conflicts with the Lord, might the leaders of the corporation (the apostles) bow to the creator of the corporation instead of bowing to the will of God?

2) The top leaders (let's just say the apostles, thought there are lots and lots of paid ministers incl mission presidents and seventies, etc.) are paid with a salary and perks. Conflict of interest with the Lord? Could what their corporate boss thinks about the employee's actions or speeches have any influence on what the employee says or does? Perhaps there's a conflict of interest? Concession here?

3) There were some Wilford Woodruff speech excerpts from 1890 added to OD1 in 1981 without an announcement or vote. The famous "The Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" false teaching was canonized. Again, with ZERO announcement nor vote. Do YOU concede this was 100% out of line procedurally?

4) Do you concede neither OD 1 nor OD2 are "revelations"? Keep in mind they are actually called "Declarations", as in Official DECLARATION, and they are not part of the "SECTIONS" of the D&C. Do you concede the content are not "revelations"?

5) Do you concede that if the 1981-added part that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is nonsense, and even anti Christ, in that it teaches the principle that God will violate free agency of the president, and that it encourages members to place their faith in the president rather than the Lord? Do you concede ANY of these points? Or do you want to justify the secret addition in 1981?

6) Polygamy. Do you concede Joseph and Emma may have been telling the truth and that he was having sex with only his wife, Emma, whom he said was his ONLY wife, and that he condemned having more than one wife? I am asking if you will concede this MIGHT be true?

7) Do you concede that if the BoM is true (and it is, I testify in the name of Christ), that does NOT equate to presidents AFTER Joseph Smith being true prophets, like Joseph was? In other words, it's a total logical fallacy for the Church leaders to prop up by incessant repetition that just because the BoM is true, that EVERYTHING current Church leaders say is the gospel truth. Do you concede this idea?


I could go on and on with more examples where an impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions.

And yet, this forum seems to be bereft of TBM's who make ANY such concessions. Does an unwillingness to concede even these examples I give above say anything about the sincere willingness of that non-conceding person to accept truth?

Even now, in this thread, how many of the TBM's here are courageous enough to say, "Topcat, I concede every one of the examples you list above"? I do say it takes courage to make concessions. It takes humility.

Just because the corporate owners of the synagogues of our day may hate you and persecute you for making these obvious concessions, will you allow them to dictate what you think? Will you allow your thought to be controlled by those who will withdraw their love from you for making such concessions? Is their love and support of you more important than God's?

I have to be frank, the OP comes across as a little disingenuous and as bit of a tactic. And I hope this doesn’t come across as contentious. Neither do I desire a debate. But there’s a touting of “obvious facts” that required you to humble yourself to the dust. You offer this as my chance? Is it courageous if I don’t concede because of my difference of belief? “An impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions”?

I see it in this life that there is an opposition in all things, and we must also walk by faith. Is truth so black and white without the walk of faith and discernment? I’m believing more and more that even prophets look through a glass, darkly; and although we have rock-solid pillars of truth, the rest of what we have we are left to piece by our best use of what God has granted us. There’s just so much we don’t know. I don’t know if I consider myself a TBM, but I’m pretty sure there are people who would call me one, which is fine.

Anyways! Here are my answers:

1. The Church is a corporation. But the church is also the true body of believers.

2. Yes, it appears that the Apostles have some kind of financial backing.

3. I don’t know. You could be right.

4. You’re probably right. It appears to be canonized declarations.

5. As long as the Brethren have the keys, which I believe they do, then it is true that they would keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold. That’s what I get from it. But the saints must be real, born-again saints.

6. Might be true. I believe there is an understanding of a law that Joseph lived that has been lost to us in our day.

7. Sure, but I don’t think they expect us to take everything they say as gospel truth. The Spirit has always been taught as the variable that allows the duty devolving upon the saints.

I don’t know if these are acceptable answers for you, but I hope you may consider as well.

Jonesy,

Thanks. I commend you for your courage. But what I think, at the end of the day, doesn't mean anything. However, I do think God would commend you for your humility and courage.

In summary, you do concede the facts:

1) TCOJCOLDS is a corporation that operates subject to the good and will and pleasure of the state. If it does things or says things that upset its creator, its creator (the gov't) could seize assets and destroy the corporation. And such a thing happened in the 1880's, as the gov't gave commands, and started confiscating property and imprisoning leaders until the corporate leaders submitted to the state's will. The end result was that so-called "saving" doctrine was reversed.

The Part B to this item was, Do you concede there is a conflict of interest? Do you see the danger in such a conflict, with the #1 concern being a watering down of Truth, or outright sacrifice of Truth in order to avoid upsetting your creator -- the state?

2) The top leaders do get financial backing, as you say.

Part B is about the potential conflict of interest with the Lord? Could what their corporate boss (who compensates them) thinks about the employee's (the GA's) actions or speeches have any influence on what the employee (the GA) says or does? Perhaps there's a conflict of interest?

3) It's okay, I see you haven't investigated. But if you do (just go to lds.org and search the back editions of the Ensign. You can go to Oct (I believe it is) of 1981 and see the one article buried in the magazine that mentions there's going to be some changes, but the actual relevant content ("the president can't lead you astray" part) is omitted!

Part B to my original question, and this assumes you do believe the Church was 100% out of line procedurally in adding those parts, the question would be, WHY? That's the million dollar question. Surely the canonization of ANYTHING would and could not be an accident. There must be a reason. What could the Brethren have had in mind to add such a extraordinary teaching to the Church that would fixate members' trust in and on the president of the Church that would inexorably lead to a complete dependence on him? Why would certain people in 1981 have wanted that inevitable result?

4) Yes, you said it even better than me. They are canonized "declarations." But how do you canonize a declaration. These are called PRESS RELEASES by some. I had never thought of them that way. But when the Church has an announcement or "declaration" to make, what does it do? It issues a press release. How do press releases get elevated to the level of Scripture in members' minds? By placing them in our canon of Scripture. The lines between a press release declaration and scripture would definitely get blurred, right? Now, the question is, why would the Brethren want members to think the two Official Declarations were Scripture, coming forth from the mouth of God?

5) On example #5, which is "Do you concede that if the 1981-added part that the "Lord won't permit me to lead you astray" is a teaching which abrogates/ nullifies the agency of the president, and that it encourages members to place their faith in the president rather than the Lord", you are riding the fence here.

Could I persuade you to answer these four related questions:

A) If it was true that the president could not lead us astray, would that be akin to saying the members' salvation is guaranteed by doing what the president says to do? After all, since he cannot err, then members would feel totally and absolutely confident in hearkening to his counsel, correct? That's why you believe they would "keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold."
B) But does merely "having the keys" guarantee they cannot err, and thus guarantee our salvation?
C) Would somebody with "keys" secretly canonize (it's indisputable there was not an announcement or vote) a teaching that nullified the president's agency?
D) Why would certain leaders want to convince people to follow them by saying they could not lead you astray? This is the million dollar question that should demand our careful attention!

6) You do concede Joseph and Emma MIGHT have been telling the truth when they testified repeatedly he had only one wife (Emma) and that Joseph condemned polygamy. Of course, if this is true, then Pandora's Box is opened regarding the origin of polygamy.

7) You do concede the logical fallacy incessantly taught by the leaders implies that if the BoM is true, that equates to presidents AFTER Joseph Smith being true prophets, as Joseph was.

Part B: Why would the leaders, by frequent repetition of this logical fallacy, want to get members to believe that the BoM being true means they ALSO are true prophets, as Joseph Smith was? How do they benefit by this leap of logic? What would they stand to lose if people weren't making this false conclusion?



I just realized that all 7 of the examples have one thing in common. All 7 facts cause one to seriously consider the veracity of claims to authority by certain leaders. NONE of the facts impugns Jesus Christ, or creates doubt in Deity, or makes one want to lose faith in our Savior Jesus Christ. Christ's greatness and perfections are left unmolested. What the 7 facts may contribute to, however, is a doubt in the claims of certain men about THEIR "supposed" authority, inspiring the individual to make sure he is standing on the rock of Jesus Christ and not on the rock of any man or men. That's the effect the exercise has on me anyway.

[harakim]

Is the Mormon Church just a big financial empire?
Is the Mormon Church just a big financial empire?

"No, it's a large religious organization with significant material needs: there are buildings to be built and maintained for worship, books and manuals to be printed and distributed worldwide, missions to operate, broadcasts to deliver, and so forth. (It even occasionally needs lawyers in this litigious era.) All of these require the use of tangible assets. They require money and properties. To ensure that the Church can continue operating even when there are downturns in the economy, it is important to convert a portion of Church income into investments that can be used in the future. To not save and not seek return on savings through investment would be utter foolishness and a violation of basic principles of financial responsibility. (For further perspectives, see the following question.)

The Church is a charitable and a religious organization. It exists to bless the lives of the world and to bring people to Christ. But this can't be done for free, without tangible assets and genuine expenses."

Jeff Lindsay

But it CAN be done for free.

[ori]

I have to be frank, the OP comes across as a little disingenuous and as bit of a tactic. And I hope this doesn’t come across as contentious. Neither do I desire a debate. But there’s a touting of “obvious facts” that required you to humble yourself to the dust. You offer this as my chance? Is it courageous if I don’t concede because of my difference of belief? “An impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions”?

I see it in this life that there is an opposition in all things, and we must also walk by faith. Is truth so black and white without the walk of faith and discernment? I’m believing more and more that even prophets look through a glass, darkly; and although we have rock-solid pillars of truth, the rest of what we have we are left to piece by our best use of what God has granted us. There’s just so much we don’t know. I don’t know if I consider myself a TBM, but I’m pretty sure there are people who would call me one, which is fine.

Anyways! Here are my answers:

1. The Church is a corporation. But the church is also the true body of believers.

2. Yes, it appears that the Apostles have some kind of financial backing.

3. I don’t know. You could be right.

4. You’re probably right. It appears to be canonized declarations.

5. As long as the Brethren have the keys, which I believe they do, then it is true that they would keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold. That’s what I get from it. But the saints must be real, born-again saints.

6. Might be true. I believe there is an understanding of a law that Joseph lived that has been lost to us in our day.

7. Sure, but I don’t think they expect us to take everything they say as gospel truth. The Spirit has always been taught as the variable that allows the duty devolving upon the saints.

I don’t know if these are acceptable answers for you, but I hope you may consider as well.

Jonesy, this is amazingly well stated. I agree with 99% of it. I agree with how you characterized the original post. I also identify with your characterization of yourself as a TBM -- that is, I may or may not consider myself to be a TBM, but I'm fine with the label.

My remaining comments are directed at topcat:

Regarding the church being subservient to the goverment -- I would remind you that Christ taught us to render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's. Joseph Smith also taught that governments are instituted for a good purpose. It is right and reasonable that the Church would therefore do all things in wisdom and order, and this includes its status in relation to the government. I don't see any real problems there.

I concede that with respect to polygamy, there are some really hard questions, which may never be answered satisfactorily until the millennium. So yes, I concede it MIGHT be true that Joseph didn't practice polygamy. I personally think he married multiple wives, but probably did not have sex with any of them. However, I'm open to the truth and learning more about it, so there aren't any polygamy-related narrative "hills" that I'm willing to die on.

[topcat]

I have to be frank, the OP comes across as a little disingenuous and as bit of a tactic. And I hope this doesn’t come across as contentious. Neither do I desire a debate. But there’s a touting of “obvious facts” that required you to humble yourself to the dust. You offer this as my chance? Is it courageous if I don’t concede because of my difference of belief? “An impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions”?

I see it in this life that there is an opposition in all things, and we must also walk by faith. Is truth so black and white without the walk of faith and discernment? I’m believing more and more that even prophets look through a glass, darkly; and although we have rock-solid pillars of truth, the rest of what we have we are left to piece by our best use of what God has granted us. There’s just so much we don’t know. I don’t know if I consider myself a TBM, but I’m pretty sure there are people who would call me one, which is fine.

Anyways! Here are my answers:

1. The Church is a corporation. But the church is also the true body of believers.

2. Yes, it appears that the Apostles have some kind of financial backing.

3. I don’t know. You could be right.

4. You’re probably right. It appears to be canonized declarations.

5. As long as the Brethren have the keys, which I believe they do, then it is true that they would keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold. That’s what I get from it. But the saints must be real, born-again saints.

6. Might be true. I believe there is an understanding of a law that Joseph lived that has been lost to us in our day.

7. Sure, but I don’t think they expect us to take everything they say as gospel truth. The Spirit has always been taught as the variable that allows the duty devolving upon the saints.

I don’t know if these are acceptable answers for you, but I hope you may consider as well.

Jonesy, this is amazingly well stated. I agree with 99% of it. I agree with how you characterized the original post. I also identify with your characterization of yourself as a TBM -- that is, I may or may not consider myself to be a TBM, but I'm fine with the label.

My remaining comments are directed at topcat:

Regarding the church being subservient to the goverment -- I would remind you that Christ taught us to render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's. Joseph Smith also taught that governments are instituted for a good purpose. It is right and reasonable that the Church would therefore do all things in wisdom and order, and this includes its status in relation to the government. I don't see any real problems there.

I concede that with respect to polygamy, there are some really hard questions, which may never be answered satisfactorily until the millennium. So yes, I concede it MIGHT be true that Joseph didn't practice polygamy. I personally think he married multiple wives, but probably did not have sex with any of them. However, I'm open to the truth and learning more about it, so there aren't any polygamy-related narrative "hills" that I'm willing to die on.

You are okay with a church that purports to be led by Christ to be subservient to the government? How do you interpret render unto Caesar to mean submit to Caesar?

What about the first commandment?

What about you cannot serve two masters?

You cannot think of any circumstances where what the state wants may conflict with what Christ wants?

Do you think that the threat of removing tax exempt status is a motivator for corporations, esp those who'd like to keep billions of dollars?

Ori, you are on a freedom forum, so I will assume you are familiar with the historical and current truth that the state is an enemy to freedom. Authoritarians get in power and persecute those who preach Liberty, usually through threats against property, liberty, and even threatening death. Yes, governments kill. Look up democide.

The rule of thumb is that governments, meaning evil people have risen to the top and control things, plunder and enslave their people. Unfortunately the United States government, as it has evolved from the glorious days of the Founding Fathers, is no different than any other government in history, and the oligarchical technocrats who rule us have figured out a way for the slaves to enjoy their servitude, indeed to not even realize that they're slaves.

However for those who have figured it out, and do voice their opposition to the corruption and the authoritarian laws of the land that oppress and molest, they become targets of persecution by the government. Hopefully I need not give real world examples of that happening right now in America to the conservative / Libertarian voices out there.

I will assume you are aware of the many examples of outright Orwellian government oppression going on right now.

Since I assume you will not deny historical atrocities by governments against their own people, I equally assume that you will understand that governments use every form of intimidation and oppression to control the people, so evil leaders can remain in power and not be exposed.

Which patriot voices historically are the ones targeted first? In other words which voices are most influential in a society to inspire the people to fight tyranny and to preserve and enlarge freedom?

The answer would be the Christian voices. The churches. So wouldn't it make perfect sense if you're the government to cleverly make laws whereby the churches could all be controlled through threats to tax them if they don't stay in line with what you want them to say or not to say?

And that of course is exactly what has happened in America. It's been this way for decades. I anticipate that since you are a visitor on this freedom forum, that this will make intuitive sense to you.

And so with all of this being said, might there be a conflict of interest by not only this church but any church that has tax-exempt status, and is incorporated, whereby what the church leaders preach may be influenced by those in the government?

Throughout the decades patriots have written thousands of articles and speeches that have exposed how the sermons of American preachers have been gutted and the preachers themselves totally brought to heel to their government masters.

Do you believe the Mormon Church is an exception, and they don't care about having their wealth and assets confiscated by the government?

If you believe that, then you need to go revisit our history in 1890. It is a verifiable case study. It demonstrates the path the church leaders deliberately chose in order stay out of prison, and to preserve their assets.

At the time polygamous relationships were an essential part of exaltation. And that doctrine just coincidentally changed a hundred and eighty degrees at the time church leaders were threatened with imprisonment and confiscation of property. Think about that, in context of the questions I'm asking you.

The government actually caused the church leaders to declare its doctrine invalid and even to reverse it, on threat of imprisonment and theft of property. You don't see a conflict of interest? You say just to submit to Caesar?

The obvious concern of everybody with their head out of the sand is, To whom do the leaders submit to? To whom do they pledge their loyalty, not just by word but deed?

When push comes to shove, who will win, Mammon or God, when the corporation's master comes calling?

[endlessQuestions]

I have to be frank, the OP comes across as a little disingenuous and as bit of a tactic. And I hope this doesn’t come across as contentious. Neither do I desire a debate. But there’s a touting of “obvious facts” that required you to humble yourself to the dust. You offer this as my chance? Is it courageous if I don’t concede because of my difference of belief? “An impartial person would have to make OBVIOUS concessions”?

I see it in this life that there is an opposition in all things, and we must also walk by faith. Is truth so black and white without the walk of faith and discernment? I’m believing more and more that even prophets look through a glass, darkly; and although we have rock-solid pillars of truth, the rest of what we have we are left to piece by our best use of what God has granted us. There’s just so much we don’t know. I don’t know if I consider myself a TBM, but I’m pretty sure there are people who would call me one, which is fine.

Anyways! Here are my answers:

1. The Church is a corporation. But the church is also the true body of believers.

2. Yes, it appears that the Apostles have some kind of financial backing.

3. I don’t know. You could be right.

4. You’re probably right. It appears to be canonized declarations.

5. As long as the Brethren have the keys, which I believe they do, then it is true that they would keep us as the body of believers in the true and living fold. That’s what I get from it. But the saints must be real, born-again saints.

6. Might be true. I believe there is an understanding of a law that Joseph lived that has been lost to us in our day.

7. Sure, but I don’t think they expect us to take everything they say as gospel truth. The Spirit has always been taught as the variable that allows the duty devolving upon the saints.

I don’t know if these are acceptable answers for you, but I hope you may consider as well.

Jonesy, this is amazingly well stated. I agree with 99% of it. I agree with how you characterized the original post. I also identify with your characterization of yourself as a TBM -- that is, I may or may not consider myself to be a TBM, but I'm fine with the label.

My remaining comments are directed at topcat:

Regarding the church being subservient to the goverment -- I would remind you that Christ taught us to render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's. Joseph Smith also taught that governments are instituted for a good purpose. It is right and reasonable that the Church would therefore do all things in wisdom and order, and this includes its status in relation to the government. I don't see any real problems there.

I concede that with respect to polygamy, there are some really hard questions, which may never be answered satisfactorily until the millennium. So yes, I concede it MIGHT be true that Joseph didn't practice polygamy. I personally think he married multiple wives, but probably did not have sex with any of them. However, I'm open to the truth and learning more about it, so there aren't any polygamy-related narrative "hills" that I'm willing to die on.

You are okay with a church that purports to be led by Christ to be subservient to the government? How do you interpret render unto Caesar to mean submit to Caesar?

What about the first commandment?

What about you cannot serve two masters?

You cannot think of any circumstances where what the state wants may conflict with what Christ wants? I

Do you think that the threat of removing tax exempt status is a motivator for corporations, esp those who'd like to keep billions of dollars?

Ori, you are on a freedom forum, so I will assume you are familiar with the historical and current truth that the state is an enemy to freedom. Authoritarians get in power and persecute those who preach Liberty, usually through threats against property, liberty, and even threatening death. Yes, governments kill. Look up democide.

The rule of thumb is that governments, meaning evil people have risen to the top and control things, plunder and enslave their people. Unfortunately the United States government, as it has evolved from the glorious days of the Founding Fathers, is no different than any other government in history, and the oligarchical technocrats who rule us have figured out a way for the slaves to enjoy their servitude, indeed to not even realize that they're slaves.

However for those who have figured it out, and do voice their opposition to the corruption and the authoritarian laws of the land that oppress and molest, they become targets of persecution by the government. Hopefully I need not give real world examples of that happening right now in America to the conservative / Libertarian voices out there.

I will assume you are aware of the many examples of outright Orwellian government oppression going on right now.

Since I assume you will do not deny the atrocities by governments against their own people, I equally assume that you will understand that governments use every form of intimidation and oppression to control the people, so the evil leaders can remain in power and not be exposed.

Which patriot voices historically are the ones targeted first? In other words which voices are most influential in a society to inspire the people to fight tyranny and to preserve and enlarge freedom?

The answer would be the Christian voices. The churches. So wouldn't it make perfect sense if you're the government to cleverly make laws whereby the churches could all be controlled through threats to tax them if they don't stay in line with what you want them to say or not to say?

And that of course is exactly what has happened in America. It's been this way for decades. I anticipate that since you are a visitor on this freedom forum, that this will make intuitive sense to you.

And so with all of this being said, might there be a conflict of interest by not only this church but any church that has tax-exempt status, and is incorporated, wherebywhat the church leaders preach may be influenced by those in the government?

Throughout the decades patriots have written thousands of articles that have exposed how the sermons of American preachers have been gutted and the preachers themselves totally brought to heel by their government masters.

Do you believe the Mormon Church is an exception, and they don't care about having their wealth and assets confiscated and corporation annihilated by the government?

If you believe that, then you need to go revisit our history in 1890. It is a verifiable case study. It demonstrates the path the church leaders deliberately chose in order stay out of prison, and to preserve their assets.

At the time polygamous relationships were an essential part of exaltation. And that doctrine just coincidentally changed a hundred and eighty degrees at the time church leaders were threatened with imprisonment and confiscation of property. Think about that, in context of the questions I'm asking you.

The government actually caused the church leaders to declare its doctrine invalid and even to reverse it, on threat of imprisonment and theft of property. You don't see a conflict of interest?

The obvious concern of everybody with her head out of the sand is, to whom do the leaders submit to? To whom do they pledge their loyalty, not just by word but deed.

When push comes to shove, who will win, Mammon or God?

“Cynics do not contribute, skeptics do not create, doubters do not achieve.”

Are you willing to concede that you are a highly cynical, skeptical, and doubting individual when it comes to church history and beliefs?