LDS Freedom Forum

Connie561 wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 10:07 pm

nightlight wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 9:57 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 9:26 pm Elder Maxwell:

Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors--like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.

Church Members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including a few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about the Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone
(Ensign, Becometh As a Child)

The critics of the Church, who are often those within the Church, frequently say, "Why doesn't the Church do this or that?" or "Why does the Church do this or that?" Those who desire to make the greatest demands of the Church are usually those who make the fewest demands of themselves in terms of their discipleship.
(Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward, 69.)

Church ... leaders are cruelly caricatured by some in the world. For perspective, imagine how television's six o'clock news would have protrayed Noah as he worked on his ark day by day. Besides, attention from the adversary is merely a cruel form of commendation, if we can but stand the "praise." There is such a thing as being praised with faint damns.
(Ensign, The Net Gatherers of Every Kind)

"Church Members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium"

False doctrine.... the Millennium starts once the earth recives it Glory and after the First Resurrection.
Before that happens.....America will have been cleansed, Enochs city returned, 10 Lost Tribes established , etc....all before the Millennium.

Zion Cometh before He comes in Glory. The tares will be torn by then....or am I reading our scriptures wrong?

There is reason why mainstream Mormons don't know this.
It's the same reason why we don't speak/teach of casting out of unclean spirits.

Shhhhh...let us not speak of these massive elephants breaking our couches....people are trying to get sum sleep.

I read your post and you wrote false doctrine. Is it the quotes that are false doctrine or what you wrote after the words false doctrine that is false doctrine?

drtanner wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 10:42 pm Another good one from Elder Maxwell

“Exciting exploration is preferred [by some] to plodding implementation; speculation seems more fun than consecration, and so is trying to soften the hard doctrines instead of submitting to them. Worse still, by not obeying, these few members lack real knowing (see John 7:17). Lacking real knowing, they cannot defend their faith and may become critics instead of defenders! A few of the latter end up in the self-reinforcing and self congratulating Hyde Park corner of the Church, which they provincially mistake for the whole of the Church, as if London's real Hyde Park corner were Parliament, Whitehall, Buckingham Palace, and all of England combined!”
(Ensign, "Settle This in Your Hearts")

Ahh yes Hyde park is alive and well on this forum and lots of self congratulating in the form of a thank button.

drtanner wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 11:36 pm Speaking of missionary work I actually think that is another significant fruit that points to Evidence of president Nelson being a prophet. Their calls originate from him and under his keys he directs the gathering of Israel.

I spend a good amount of time with the missionaries, they have lived in our home for years and I absolutely love missionary work. I love knocking doors with the missionaries, street contacting, and especially love sitting in on teaching appointments. Two Sunday's ago we had several investigators at church one of which will hopefully be getting baptized soon.

For return missionaries it is easy to forget the power of the spirit in a missionary discussion, and I would encourage anyone doubting to spend time finding and teaching with the missionaries. There is a humble, tangible spirit to be found there.

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 5:27 am Question for the critics:

In your opinion, who was the last valid prophet in this dispensation?

Please do answer. I want to understand where you are coming from. Was anybody ever good enough?

Aprhys wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 3:39 am

drtanner wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 11:36 pm Speaking of missionary work I actually think that is another significant fruit that points to Evidence of president Nelson being a prophet. Their calls originate from him and under his keys he directs the gathering of Israel.

I spend a good amount of time with the missionaries, they have lived in our home for years and I absolutely love missionary work. I love knocking doors with the missionaries, street contacting, and especially love sitting in on teaching appointments. Two Sunday's ago we had several investigators at church one of which will hopefully be getting baptized soon.

For return missionaries it is easy to forget the power of the spirit in a missionary discussion, and I would encourage anyone doubting to spend time finding and teaching with the missionaries. There is a humble, tangible spirit to be found there.

Please explain how mission calls originate from Nelson? The belief that someone prays about where each missionary should go is complete nonsense.

Aprhys wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 3:39 am

drtanner wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 11:36 pm Speaking of missionary work I actually think that is another significant fruit that points to Evidence of president Nelson being a prophet. Their calls originate from him and under his keys he directs the gathering of Israel.

I spend a good amount of time with the missionaries, they have lived in our home for years and I absolutely love missionary work. I love knocking doors with the missionaries, street contacting, and especially love sitting in on teaching appointments. Two Sunday's ago we had several investigators at church one of which will hopefully be getting baptized soon.

For return missionaries it is easy to forget the power of the spirit in a missionary discussion, and I would encourage anyone doubting to spend time finding and teaching with the missionaries. There is a humble, tangible spirit to be found there.

Please explain how mission calls originate from Nelson? The belief that someone prays about where each missionary should go is complete nonsense.

drtanner wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 6:57 am

Aprhys wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 3:39 am

drtanner wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2019, 11:36 pm Speaking of missionary work I actually think that is another significant fruit that points to Evidence of president Nelson being a prophet. Their calls originate from him and under his keys he directs the gathering of Israel.

I spend a good amount of time with the missionaries, they have lived in our home for years and I absolutely love missionary work. I love knocking doors with the missionaries, street contacting, and especially love sitting in on teaching appointments. Two Sunday's ago we had several investigators at church one of which will hopefully be getting baptized soon.

For return missionaries it is easy to forget the power of the spirit in a missionary discussion, and I would encourage anyone doubting to spend time finding and teaching with the missionaries. There is a humble, tangible spirit to be found there.

Please explain how mission calls originate from Nelson? The belief that someone prays about where each missionary should go is complete nonsense.

This is his responsibility, approves every call.

From President Oaks:

“The information is presented on a screen for the apostle, who seeks divine guidance as he assigns each missionary to one of the 405 Church missions across the world. The mission assignment is then approved by the president of the Church, who issues the written mission call letter.”

Beyond knowing how the call is issued the greatest witness will come if you dive in and work with these young people. I can testify that The Lord uses the weak things of the world to “thrash the nations by the power of the spirit” Another recent experience was attending zone conference, It was a palpable Spirit. You should try it, you won’t be disappointed

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 7:37 am Jeremiah 23:21–32

Old Testament

21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.

22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

25 I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.

26 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;

27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.

28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.

29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.

31 Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.

32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord.


To those who defend the church and the leaders as well as the gospel as written in scripture that teach by the Spirit of truth, let them stand strong and faithful and deflect the fiery darts of deceit as the Lord directs in Jer 23:28

Matthias wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 6:01 am

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 5:27 am Question for the critics:

In your opinion, who was the last valid prophet in this dispensation?

Please do answer. I want to understand where you are coming from. Was anybody ever good enough?

Joseph Smith certainly was a true prophet, seer, and revelator.

He also had the 12 apostles in his day sustained as such.

There were some visions, prophecies, and thus saith the Lord revelations by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and a few others. I think Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith did, too. They weren't on the same level as the one's Joseph Smith had though. With the exception of D&C 136 and 138, none of the things these men revealed, saw, or even taught is considered scripture by the Church today.

Most of the revelations John Taylor brought forth had to do with resisting the government's witch hunt against the Church over plural marriage and that the Lord would never rescind that law.

John Taylor also had a dream in which he saw Salt Lake City destroyed along with other wicked cities.

Obviously those revelations are not accepted as true in the Church today. They certainly didn't make it into the Teachings of John Taylor lesson manual a few years ago.

The teachings by the Church leaders prior to 1890 are avoided by the Church today. Occasionally a few quotes are taken out of context from that period and twisted to support the current church narrative, but otherwise they are avoided like the plague.

If the teachings of the prophets from 1845 to 1890 can't be trusted, then obviously the Church doesn't really believe that those men were prophets, seers, and revelators.

And if those men weren't, then their successors, who never spoke of any vision, revelation, or prophecy, can't be either.

Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors--like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed. This is truly faulty logic. Any honest person would look at both sides and then make a decision

Church Members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including a few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about the Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. This is so full of nonsense. Every member is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say as they please just as the leaders do. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. When the church has zero financial transparency they put themselves up to be criticized. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. They are somehow above criticism? Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone When they discover that the church they put their heart and soul into, lies, conceals, belittles, and then shames them, what do you expect? Plus they feel the need to warn others so they can have all the relevant facts in order to make an informed decision on their membership.
(Ensign, Becometh As a Child)

The critics of the Church, who are often those within the Church, frequently say, "Why doesn't the Church do this or that?" or "Why does the Church do this or that?" Those who desire to make the greatest demands of the Church are usually those who make the fewest demands of themselves in terms of their discipleship. This statement is just hubris
(Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward, 69.)

Church ... leaders are cruelly caricatured by some in the world. For perspective, imagine how television's six o'clock news would have portrayed Noah as he worked on his ark day by day. Besides, attention from the adversary is merely a cruel form of commendation, if we can but stand the "praise." There is such a thing as being praised with faint damns. He's comparing the leaders today to a real prophet? The level of opposition in today's world pales in comparison to anything an actual prophet endured. What nonsense, these guys are basically worshiped in today's world. This should be something to consider in your search for truth
(Ensign, The Net Gatherers of Every Kind)

Mindfields wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 9:43 am

Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors--like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed. This is truly faulty logic. Any honest person would look at both sides and then make a decision

Church Members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including a few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about the Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. This is so full of nonsense. Every member is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say as they please just as the leaders do. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. When the church has zero financial transparency they put themselves up to be criticized. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. They are somehow above criticism? Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone When they discover that the church they put their heart and soul into, lies, conceals, belittles, and then shames them, what do you expect? Plus they feel the need to warn others so they can have all the relevant facts in order to make an informed decision on their membership.
(Ensign, Becometh As a Child)

The critics of the Church, who are often those within the Church, frequently say, "Why doesn't the Church do this or that?" or "Why does the Church do this or that?" Those who desire to make the greatest demands of the Church are usually those who make the fewest demands of themselves in terms of their discipleship. This statement is just hubris
(Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward, 69.)

Church ... leaders are cruelly caricatured by some in the world. For perspective, imagine how television's six o'clock news would have portrayed Noah as he worked on his ark day by day. Besides, attention from the adversary is merely a cruel form of commendation, if we can but stand the "praise." There is such a thing as being praised with faint damns. He's comparing the leaders today to a real prophet? The level of opposition in today's world pales in comparison to anything an actual prophet endured. What nonsense, these guys are basically worshiped in today's world. This should be something to consider in your search for truth
(Ensign, The Net Gatherers of Every Kind)

These kind of statements only work if the church is the one and only true church on the earth and the leaders are all called of God and supported by him. Since neither of these conditions are in fact true this is just an example of yet another leader using their god given authority as they suppose and blaming the members for the churches troubles.

Mindfields wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 9:43 am

Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors--like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed. This is truly faulty logic. Any honest person would look at both sides and then make a decision

Church Members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including a few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about the Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. This is so full of nonsense. Every member is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say as they please just as the leaders do. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. When the church has zero financial transparency they put themselves up to be criticized. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. They are somehow above criticism? Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone When they discover that the church they put their heart and soul into, lies, conceals, belittles, and then shames them, what do you expect? Plus they feel the need to warn others so they can have all the relevant facts in order to make an informed decision on their membership.
(Ensign, Becometh As a Child)

The critics of the Church, who are often those within the Church, frequently say, "Why doesn't the Church do this or that?" or "Why does the Church do this or that?" Those who desire to make the greatest demands of the Church are usually those who make the fewest demands of themselves in terms of their discipleship. This statement is just hubris
(Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward, 69.)

Church ... leaders are cruelly caricatured by some in the world. For perspective, imagine how television's six o'clock news would have portrayed Noah as he worked on his ark day by day. Besides, attention from the adversary is merely a cruel form of commendation, if we can but stand the "praise." There is such a thing as being praised with faint damns. He's comparing the leaders today to a real prophet? The level of opposition in today's world pales in comparison to anything an actual prophet endured. What nonsense, these guys are basically worshiped in today's world. This should be something to consider in your search for truth
(Ensign, The Net Gatherers of Every Kind)

These kind of statements only work if the church is the one and only true church on the earth and the leaders are all called of God and supported by him. Since neither of these conditions are in fact true this is just an example of yet another leader using their god given authority as they suppose and blaming the members for the churches troubles.

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 9:25 am

Matthias wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 6:01 am

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 5:27 am Question for the critics:

In your opinion, who was the last valid prophet in this dispensation?

Please do answer. I want to understand where you are coming from. Was anybody ever good enough?

Joseph Smith certainly was a true prophet, seer, and revelator.

He also had the 12 apostles in his day sustained as such.

There were some visions, prophecies, and thus saith the Lord revelations by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and a few others. I think Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith did, too. They weren't on the same level as the one's Joseph Smith had though. With the exception of D&C 136 and 138, none of the things these men revealed, saw, or even taught is considered scripture by the Church today.

Most of the revelations John Taylor brought forth had to do with resisting the government's witch hunt against the Church over plural marriage and that the Lord would never rescind that law.

John Taylor also had a dream in which he saw Salt Lake City destroyed along with other wicked cities.

Obviously those revelations are not accepted as true in the Church today. They certainly didn't make it into the Teachings of John Taylor lesson manual a few years ago.

The teachings by the Church leaders prior to 1890 are avoided by the Church today. Occasionally a few quotes are taken out of context from that period and twisted to support the current church narrative, but otherwise they are avoided like the plague.

If the teachings of the prophets from 1845 to 1890 can't be trusted, then obviously the Church doesn't really believe that those men were prophets, seers, and revelators.

And if those men weren't, then their successors, who never spoke of any vision, revelation, or prophecy, can't be either.

So Joseph F. Smith was the last legitimate prophet, in your opinion? And a sketchy one at that? This is not a trap. Just trying to understand. But does it coincide with the polygamy issue...coincidentally or not?

Matthias wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 12:31 pm

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 9:25 am

Matthias wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 6:01 am

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 5:27 am Question for the critics:

In your opinion, who was the last valid prophet in this dispensation?

Please do answer. I want to understand where you are coming from. Was anybody ever good enough?

Joseph Smith certainly was a true prophet, seer, and revelator.

He also had the 12 apostles in his day sustained as such.

There were some visions, prophecies, and thus saith the Lord revelations by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and a few others. I think Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith did, too. They weren't on the same level as the one's Joseph Smith had though. With the exception of D&C 136 and 138, none of the things these men revealed, saw, or even taught is considered scripture by the Church today.

Most of the revelations John Taylor brought forth had to do with resisting the government's witch hunt against the Church over plural marriage and that the Lord would never rescind that law.

John Taylor also had a dream in which he saw Salt Lake City destroyed along with other wicked cities.

Obviously those revelations are not accepted as true in the Church today. They certainly didn't make it into the Teachings of John Taylor lesson manual a few years ago.

The teachings by the Church leaders prior to 1890 are avoided by the Church today. Occasionally a few quotes are taken out of context from that period and twisted to support the current church narrative, but otherwise they are avoided like the plague.

If the teachings of the prophets from 1845 to 1890 can't be trusted, then obviously the Church doesn't really believe that those men were prophets, seers, and revelators.

And if those men weren't, then their successors, who never spoke of any vision, revelation, or prophecy, can't be either.

So Joseph F. Smith was the last legitimate prophet, in your opinion? And a sketchy one at that? This is not a trap. Just trying to understand. But does it coincide with the polygamy issue...coincidentally or not?

You tell me.

As far as I'm aware there has not been a single "thus saith the Lord" revelation since before the 1890 manifesto.

If you, or anyone else on this forum, are aware of one I'm all ears.

Joseph F. Smith did have the vision now known as D&C 138 in 1918. In 1905 he had issued the second manifesto, mandating the excommunication of those who continued to perform plural marriages. I believe he was still quietly cohabiting with more than one wife at this time. Don't quote me on that.

So it would appear that at least one vision was given after the official end of plural marriage. I'm not aware of any others. If you know of any please share.

If our church presidents from 1918 onwards were declaring visions they have had, receiving thus saith the Lord revelations, and prophecying of the future, while not changing or abandoning any other doctrines and teachings of the Church, then I would say that the end of plural marriage is a none issue.

But as it stands, that's not what it looks like.

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 12:51 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 12:31 pm

Allison wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 9:25 am

Matthias wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 6:01 am

Joseph Smith certainly was a true prophet, seer, and revelator.

He also had the 12 apostles in his day sustained as such.

There were some visions, prophecies, and thus saith the Lord revelations by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and a few others. I think Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith did, too. They weren't on the same level as the one's Joseph Smith had though. With the exception of D&C 136 and 138, none of the things these men revealed, saw, or even taught is considered scripture by the Church today.

Most of the revelations John Taylor brought forth had to do with resisting the government's witch hunt against the Church over plural marriage and that the Lord would never rescind that law.

John Taylor also had a dream in which he saw Salt Lake City destroyed along with other wicked cities.

Obviously those revelations are not accepted as true in the Church today. They certainly didn't make it into the Teachings of John Taylor lesson manual a few years ago.

The teachings by the Church leaders prior to 1890 are avoided by the Church today. Occasionally a few quotes are taken out of context from that period and twisted to support the current church narrative, but otherwise they are avoided like the plague.

If the teachings of the prophets from 1845 to 1890 can't be trusted, then obviously the Church doesn't really believe that those men were prophets, seers, and revelators.

And if those men weren't, then their successors, who never spoke of any vision, revelation, or prophecy, can't be either.

So Joseph F. Smith was the last legitimate prophet, in your opinion? And a sketchy one at that? This is not a trap. Just trying to understand. But does it coincide with the polygamy issue...coincidentally or not?

You tell me.

As far as I'm aware there has not been a single "thus saith the Lord" revelation since before the 1890 manifesto.

If you, or anyone else on this forum, are aware of one I'm all ears.

Joseph F. Smith did have the vision now known as D&C 138 in 1918. In 1905 he had issued the second manifesto, mandating the excommunication of those who continued to perform plural marriages. I believe he was still quietly cohabiting with more than one wife at this time. Don't quote me on that.

So it would appear that at least one vision was given after the official end of plural marriage. I'm not aware of any others. If you know of any please share.

If our church presidents from 1918 onwards were declaring visions they have had, receiving thus saith the Lord revelations, and prophecying of the future, while not changing or abandoning any other doctrines and teachings of the Church, then I would say that the end of plural marriage is a none issue.

But as it stands, that's not what it looks like.

I can't possibly tell you what your opinion is, which is what I asked. But if I understand correctly, you are saying that Joseph F. Smith was the last prophet, and barely by a thread at that, due to ending polygamy while not ending it himself (possibly) and only having had one published vision. The fact polygamy ended when valid prophets ended is purely coincidental. Is that about it?

It's okay with me. I have friends who left the Church because we no longer have polygamy. And I have friends who left the Church because we once had it. Lol. It's almost as if we are all listening to different Holy Ghosts, though that is not possible. A lot of people sure are getting different answers, though.

All the best to you!

drtanner wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 11:38 am

Mindfields wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 9:43 am

Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors--like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed. This is truly faulty logic. Any honest person would look at both sides and then make a decision

Church Members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including a few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about the Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. This is so full of nonsense. Every member is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say as they please just as the leaders do. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. When the church has zero financial transparency they put themselves up to be criticized. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. They are somehow above criticism? Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone When they discover that the church they put their heart and soul into, lies, conceals, belittles, and then shames them, what do you expect? Plus they feel the need to warn others so they can have all the relevant facts in order to make an informed decision on their membership.
(Ensign, Becometh As a Child)

The critics of the Church, who are often those within the Church, frequently say, "Why doesn't the Church do this or that?" or "Why does the Church do this or that?" Those who desire to make the greatest demands of the Church are usually those who make the fewest demands of themselves in terms of their discipleship. This statement is just hubris
(Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward, 69.)

Church ... leaders are cruelly caricatured by some in the world. For perspective, imagine how television's six o'clock news would have portrayed Noah as he worked on his ark day by day. Besides, attention from the adversary is merely a cruel form of commendation, if we can but stand the "praise." There is such a thing as being praised with faint damns. He's comparing the leaders today to a real prophet? The level of opposition in today's world pales in comparison to anything an actual prophet endured. What nonsense, these guys are basically worshiped in today's world. This should be something to consider in your search for truth
(Ensign, The Net Gatherers of Every Kind)

These kind of statements only work if the church is the one and only true church on the earth and the leaders are all called of God and supported by him. Since neither of these conditions are in fact true this is just an example of yet another leader using their god given authority as they suppose and blaming the members for the churches troubles.

So you believe I err in doctrine? Hmm. “I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” -Joseph Smith

We must not forget however:
"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth

or as Elder McConkie puts it:

"We take comfort in a divine promise vouchsafed to us which has never been given of God in any previous dispensation. It is that the gospel and all that appertains to it shall never again be taken from the earth. It is that the Church and kingdom will prevail; never again will there be a universal apostasy with the consequent need for a restoration; this time the knowledge of God is destined to cover the earth as the waters cover the sea."

Allison wrote: ↑December 24th, 2019, 9:49 am Assuming your premise is right that the Church is fallen and apostate, what do you suggest that we do about it?

BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑December 24th, 2019, 2:47 pm

Allison wrote: ↑December 24th, 2019, 9:49 am Assuming your premise is right that the Church is fallen and apostate, what do you suggest that we do about it?

The Church has not "fallen," nor is it "apostate," it hasn't realized its potential because of its members. We are not getting the nourishment that we need in order to sustain awareness. The price of freedom is vigilance. The essence of vigilance is awareness. The Saints are simply not aware because they have taken the "arm of flesh" as their idol instead of going to the Source, as President Nelson is advising. There are many things amiss with the "good, ole ship, Zion." She is "listing" and, therefore, headed off course. She is leaking and her oarsmen are not synchronized. Revelation is needed to plug the holes, synchronize the oars, and hasten the bail out. Those in the bow aren't aware of those in the stern and the baby is liable to get thrown out with the wash because of back-lash.

1. The controversial issues have to be resolved.
2. The best "defense" is exactly that . . . defense, meaning that a course of rectitude has to be set and the line has to be firmly charted. We simply cannot cater to every whim of doctrine and desire. We cannot "water down" and soften God's decrees. We have to set things exactly straight and then persist on course regardless of the winds or the tide.

BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑December 24th, 2019, 2:47 pm

Allison wrote: ↑December 24th, 2019, 9:49 am Assuming your premise is right that the Church is fallen and apostate, what do you suggest that we do about it?

The Church has not "fallen," nor is it "apostate," it hasn't realized its potential because of its members. We are not getting the nourishment that we need in order to sustain awareness. The price of freedom is vigilance. The essence of vigilance is awareness. The Saints are simply not aware because they have taken the "arm of flesh" as their idol instead of going to the Source, as President Nelson is advising. There are many things amiss with the "good, ole ship, Zion." She is "listing" and, therefore, headed off course. She is leaking and her oarsmen are not synchronized. Revelation is needed to plug the holes, synchronize the oars, and hasten the bail out. Those in the bow aren't aware of those in the stern and the baby is liable to get thrown out with the wash because of back-lash.

1. The controversial issues have to be resolved.
2. The best "defense" is exactly that . . . defense, meaning that a course of rectitude has to be set and the line has to be firmly charted. We simply cannot cater to every whim of doctrine and desire. We cannot "water down" and soften God's decrees. We have to set things exactly straight and then persist on course regardless of the winds or the tide.

Allison wrote: ↑December 24th, 2019, 4:36 pm Are you talking about LGBT stuff, polygamy, etc.?

I kind of wish we weren't so ardently courting LGBT's to come to church with us. We can be kind without going out of our way to invite potential wolves into the hen house.