The 15 Bretheren Have Painted Themselves Into a Corner

[GeeR]

If indeed the Is prophet Has led people astray, then as he has said the Lord will remove him.

The problem with this statement is that it is false doctrine! Oh, oh now what?

[GeeR]

If indeed the Is prophet Has led people astray, then as he has said the Lord will remove him.

Where has the Lord said that this would be the case? Where are the fruits that make him a prophet to begin with?

These are questions I've asked people here, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

If you believe that he is a prophet, there should be a reason why.

The reason why is because he says so. Pretty flimsy reason in my mind.

[Prana]

If indeed the Is prophet Has led people astray, then as he has said the Lord will remove him.

The problem with this statement is that it is false doctrine! Oh, oh now what?

It’s all circular reasoning locked inside a very tidy box. Mormonism is everything it claims to be because Mormonism said so.

[NeveR]

1. Go peruse openvaers.com and look at the various menu choices in the upper left 3 lined menu. Of particular note is mortality... and the graphs show just under half of the reports are identified as US. So 8,000-9,000 deaths in less than a year in the US. ( CDC has an official number in that range.) Then look at the number of days between injection and death. Very heavy in the 1st 4 days. That sure looks like a causal effect... and it continues to hold true each reporting week after week.

2. Morbidly, I anticipated some deaths in church leadership by now from the injections but that has not transpired. I do have a close friend neighbor member who succumbed a month after the second mRNA vac, full of blood clots and COVID positive. He was doing all he could to follow the prophet.

3. I wonder if we are asked to be vaccinated for a greater cause and not an individual benefit, which may be negative for a small-yet-real and significant portion of the membership.

4. If the prophet is in error and it negatively impacts the moving forward of the Lord's will, I'm confident that truth will prevail within some small season.

5. I have a strong belief in both the precepts and historicity of the Book of Mormon, unashamedly.

I hate to say this, but I highly doubt any top flight religious or political leader has been given the real 'vaxx'. Too risky and a potential PR disaster if they sickened or died.

Whether they knew it or not I think everyone in the FP etc will have received saline.

Hence no deaths.

PS - let's remember "Covid positive" means absolutely nothing.

[Niemand]

It's pretty convenient that every doctor who disagrees with you is brainwashed.

You might be finding this all great fun, but in reality you're talking about people's lives here. The side effects are common. I'm hearing about them all the time off people who support the shots. Some of them are becoming seriously ill, and some of them dying.

And then there are these vaccine passports they are trying to bring in worldwide which are nothing but totalitarianism, and you'll need to get into a shop or a café. I suppose you support them and all.

No, they're not necessarily brainwashed, but they are heavily invested in this whole project, and because they've pushed them, and caused economic chaos, they have to want them to work.

[Niemand]

I’ve said before and I’ll keep saying it. The data means squat because nobody can prove any data points beyond a shadow of doubt. What we can prove beyond a shadow of doubt is that a tyrannical coup has been implemented on the back of covid worldwide that directly coincides with the stated goals of the powers that be.

This COP26 summit will dovetail into it as well. We have the US president staying down the road and his planes, cars and helicopters will have produced millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide by the end of it... and the solution will be more restrictions on the life of the "peasants" like me and you, and driving our cost of living up.

[sushi_chef]

"Re: No politician, no movie star.... are dying from covid
Post by EmmaLee » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:31 am

According to Jake Oaks (Pres. Oaks grandson), the shots the FP got for the cameras were indeed placebos. Can't have our 'global faith leaders' passing out in front of the cameras while getting the clotshot.
"
viewtopic.php?p=1180548#p1180548

[Niemand]

"Re: No politician, no movie star.... are dying from covid
Post by EmmaLee » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:31 am

According to Jake Oaks (Pres. Oaks grandson), the shots the FP got for the cameras were indeed placebos. Can't have our 'global faith leaders' passing out in front of the cameras while getting the clotshot.
"
viewtopic.php?p=1180548#p1180548

That's already happened in several cases, notably the Indian celebrity and Bollywood star Vivek who took his in front of millions of TV viewers and was dead the next morning. That must be one of their biggest fails to date, and one of the reasons for mass hesitancy in the second largest nation on Earth.

[Chip]

...
Just listen to what this guy says. When he first when to the ER with his symptoms the ER doc. told him he was having a psychotic break and told him he needed to go to a MENTAL facility!!! He didn't.
...

This is how you would likely be treated by fellow church members if you were to tell them that you see that the church has joined the secret combination that we are supposed to be awakening to.

RED ALERT - Paradigm Crash!

You would have to be thrown out, in order to preserve the stasis that keeps things glued together.

[Reluctant Watchman]

If indeed the Is prophet Has led people astray, then as he has said the Lord will remove him. This is not my stewardship and it is not your Stewardship. It is in the hands of the Lord and I trust the Lord.

Did the Lord say that or did WW say that to appease the masses and justify his actions?

[Reluctant Watchman]

I am also a book of mormon believer and that there is strong evidence for the historicity of the book of mormon .
Note that talk by elder Holland about 3 years ago regarding the importance of validated evidences for the book of mormon

The problem with Holland's talk was that he piggy-backed a whole bunch of falshoods onto a truth. The BoM is true. That doesn't mean that the Lord will sustain His restored church in the last days. It doesn't mean that these men cannot lead us astray... ever! It doesn't mean that when they speak the Lord is speaking.

[mahalanobis]

In theory any member can lay charges and instigate church disciplinary action against the President of the church. It even says so in the D&C.
I wonder what would happen if some well informed and articulate member, quoting and evidencing real cases of deaths and injuries as a direct consequence of obedience to the FP, did this?

Per D&C 107, the governing quorums are equal in authority to others if they are unanimous. Thus, if the President of the Church did something bad, the combined, unanimous Q12 is equal in authority to the QFP. D&C 107 also states that the quorums of the 70 are equal in authority if they are unanimous if there ever arose a controversy with the higher quorums. This is the mechanism God has given for regulating the Church and dealing with "constitutional crisis" or controversies involving high leaders.

It requires unanimous agreement of the quorum in favor of the question, which would be a very tall order if someone were to want to bring it to bear against the President. I think those hoping for something like this because of masking and vaccines are delusional.

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

[Chip]

We used to get this really awesome barbecue sauce that was made by Kraft. It said on the front that it had real sugar in it. One day, I opened a new bottle, squirted some out, took a bite, and the flavor and texture were revolting. What the heck happened? I looked at the front of the bottle and it no longer said anything about having real sugar. I read the back and there it was in fine print: high-fructose corn syrup. Similarly, the church has removed the gospel and inserted the new world order. Puke!

[nightlight]

In theory any member can lay charges and instigate church disciplinary action against the President of the church. It even says so in the D&C.
I wonder what would happen if some well informed and articulate member, quoting and evidencing real cases of deaths and injuries as a direct consequence of obedience to the FP, did this?

Per D&C 107, the governing quorums are equal in authority to others if they are unanimous. Thus, if the President of the Church did something bad, the combined, unanimous Q12 is equal in authority to the QFP. D&C 107 also states that the quorums of the 70 are equal in authority if they are unanimous if there ever arose a controversy with the higher quorums. This is the mechanism God has given for regulating the Church and dealing with "constitutional crisis" or controversies involving high leaders.

It requires unanimous agreement of the quorum in favor of the question, which would be a very tall order if someone were to want to bring it to bear against the President. I think those hoping for something like this because of masking and vaccines are delusional.

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

The church has more information on the past revising of our religion than we understand. This allows them the "evolve" their policies to a more desired end.

Instead of editing revelation, like Brigham Young & Co., they just update in the name of Continued Revelation

Hence the fact that at all things are not by common consent.

[Rubicon]

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

Like many things (e.g., bishops directly descended from Aaron not needing counselors), I believe these things are in the scriptures for a reason (there will be a need). It may be that a "constitutional crisis" in the Church will cause a schism, and the real possibility will arise where united quorums may clash (that's really hard to imagine right now).

B.H. Roberts wrote that the prophet not being able to lead astray isn't because he physically can't (his agency is curtailed), or because God would kill him if he tried, but actually because the collective members of the Church have their own testimonies, wisdom and agency. He can't, because he can't.

Brigham Young's famous quote touches on this:

"How do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? . . . How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? . . . Live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God . . . But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin?. . . But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? . . . If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. (Brigham Young, August 13, 1871. Journal of Discourses 14:204).

I think we are seeing more and more "recalcitrance" among active, believing members (e.g., vaccines and masks, but many other things as well). They sustain and believe in the prophets, but when their own revelation, conscience, and light differs, they say, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!”

[Chip]

...
I think we are seeing more and more "recalcitrance" among active, believing members (e.g., vaccines and masks, but many other things as well). They sustain and believe in the prophets, but when their own revelation, conscience, and light differs, they say, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!”

BUT.... Those that are in agreement with these wrong things are increasingly filling the local leadership positions and other like-minded members are dominating the Sunday School discussions. It all makes for a bad environment.

[Fred]

Only a small percentage of the members actually follow Christ. The rest follow satan.

When a man claims to speak for Christ, but does not, he is a dirty dog.

[GeeR]

In theory any member can lay charges and instigate church disciplinary action against the President of the church. It even says so in the D&C.
I wonder what would happen if some well informed and articulate member, quoting and evidencing real cases of deaths and injuries as a direct consequence of obedience to the FP, did this?

Per D&C 107, the governing quorums are equal in authority to others if they are unanimous. Thus, if the President of the Church did something bad, the combined, unanimous Q12 is equal in authority to the QFP. D&C 107 also states that the quorums of the 70 are equal in authority if they are unanimous if there ever arose a controversy with the higher quorums. This is the mechanism God has given for regulating the Church and dealing with "constitutional crisis" or controversies involving high leaders.

It requires unanimous agreement of the quorum in favor of the question, which would be a very tall order if someone were to want to bring it to bear against the President. I think those hoping for something like this because of masking and vaccines are delusional.

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

Bingo!

[mahalanobis]

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

B.H. Roberts wrote that the prophet not being able to lead astray isn't because he physically can't (his agency is curtailed), or because God would kill him if he tried, but actually because the collective members of the Church have their own testimonies, wisdom and agency. He can't, because he can't.

This ^^^ is much closer to my understanding of the "not lead astray" doctrine. But I phrase it a little differently.

In my view, the "not lead the saints astray" doctrine is to be understood as follows: If they are true saints (sanctified and redeemed), no man can lead them astray because they will NOT follow when wrongdoing occurs. It has more to do with the saints/members ability to discern than it has to do with any particular leader or whether that leader would be immediately removed.

But Wilford Woodruff and many others have made it all about the leader and thus somehow the members all being obligated to follow no matter what. Which is dangerous and false.

[Rubicon]

This ^^^ is much closer to my understanding of the "not lead astray" doctrine. But I phrase it a little differently.

In my view, the "not lead the saints astray" doctrine is to be understood as follows: If they are true saints (sanctified and redeemed), no man can lead them astray because they will NOT follow when wrongdoing occurs. It has more to do with the saints/members ability to discern than it has to do with any particular leader or whether that leader would be immediately removed.

But Wilford Woodruff and many others have made it all about the leader and thus somehow the members all being obligated to follow no matter what. Which is dangerous and false.

I also like what John Taylor taught about the parameters for revelation from the First Presidency:

"It requires the Presidency of the Church to seek after God in all of their administrations . . . Now we ought not to allow our feeling to have any place in these matters. No man has a right to use his priesthood to carry on his own peculiar ideas, or to set himself up as a standard, with the exception of the First Presidency, and they have no right to do it unless God be with them, and sustain them, and they are upheld by the people." (John Taylor, July 18, 1880. Journal of Discourses 22:201-202)

Note that this applies even to the First Presidency only when three conditions are met:

1) God is with them.

2) God sustains them.

3) They are upheld by the people.

D&C 68:2-3 teaches that revelation is only when people speak as moved upon by the Spirit. This applies to leaders as well as laymen.

[Silver Pie]

Did the Lord say that or did WW say that to appease the masses and justify his actions?

I believe WW said it so that the members would hear the secret message, which was, "I am only pretending we are giving up polygamy." It was a "sure we'll obey the gov't" wink wink

[Silver Pie]

I hate to say this, but I highly doubt any top flight religious or political leader has been given the real 'vaxx'. Too risky and a potential PR disaster if they sickened or died.

Whether they knew it or not I think everyone in the FP etc will have received saline.

Hence no deaths.

PS - let's remember "Covid positive" means absolutely nothing.

I don't know how true it is, but more and more, I hear that some of the shots are only saline solutions. The FP receiving theirs was saline so that there would be no chance of them passing out in front of the cameras, but I don't know if they got another shot at some other point. Considering how healthy (and way younger) people are having serious, even deadly, reactions, I have a difficult time believing they all got a real mrna.

[JD21]

The 15 brethren have painted themselves into a corner.


A very outspoken critic of the covid jab is Dr. Peter McCollough. Dr. McCollough is known worldwide and his credentials are unquestionable. Interestingly, he was a proponent of the jab in January and was actually administering it to his patients. What changed? In a word: Data. He knew from experience that when conducting a trial with a new vaccine or drug, if the adverse reactions lead to the death of over 25 people…it would be halted and pulled off the market immediately. That’s the established protocol for safety.

By February, Dr. McCollough knew something was very wrong. The number of deaths on the CDC’s VAERS database had climbed to over 200…yet no-one was doing anything to stop the covid jab. When he tried to sound alarm bells, he found himself being criticized, censored and slandered. He knew back in February that the jab was NOT “safe and effective”. He also knew, this had nothing to do with public health.

Today the VAERS database on the covid jab has over 17,000 deaths and over 900,000 injuries. To put that in perspective, it is greater than ALL vaccine injuries reported over the 30 years of the VAERS history.

To be parroting the ridiculous and laughable lie, at this point in time, that the jab is “safe and effective” is outright criminal and evil.

Because the 15 brethren have hitched their horse to the vax wagon with steel cables that are welded in place, it seems they have set up their own downfall. People have died and been injured BECAUSE of their urging members to get the jab. Many more will follow with ADE, cancers, autoimmune disorders, blood clots, strokes, heart attacks and weakened immune systems.

In a nutshell…this is only going to get worse and people are waking up to the fact that the jab is deadly and ineffective. so….what is the natural reaction if you loose your spouse, child, a parent, co-worker or friend BECAUSE of the jab?

How are you and others going to feel towards those who were URGING people to get it???

Now add in the “Prophet” factor and you can get a sense of what is coming…

I don't understand the appeal to authority. One doctor says it's bad therefore it's bad? What of the 99% of doctors, also with unimpeachable credentials, who say it's safe and effective?

There were probably one or two doctors who were brave enough to state that Dr. Mengele's experiments were bad, wrong, evil. Of course they would have most likely suffered the consequences of speaking against what had become politically correct. The other 99% of doctors went along with it.

Of course, EVENTUALLY, the curtain was pulled back and reason again prevailed. And some of the 99% were hung after their trial.

[JD21]

It's true. No one can deny that people are being killed and maimed from these shots. So, normie members only have to come up with a solid excuse... somehow. We've already had people on this forum attempt to make excuses for the brethren. All of them asinine.

I'm hearing it from people who SUPPORT the bloody thing.

Just within the last two or three weeks:
* My god daughter's grandfather tells me he got a clot on his lung from his first earlier this year. He went for his next booster the other day.
* Two ward members were in hospital with Covid, both double jabbed.
* At my monthly book club, a regular attendee couldn't come because he felt sick after his booster jab.
* Another double jabbed ward member got Covid, and spent five days in hospital what she calls a "Hemiplagic Migraine", and says on Facebook that she lost the ability to speak and the ability to use her right arm. She attributes this to Covid itself, but it sounds suspiciously like the strokes that have afflicted many people after taking the vaccines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiplegic_migraine

She is actually boasting about how "[h]opefully the 2 vaccines will do their job but right now I'm pretty ill". I wonder if she's actually having side effects from them rather than Covid itself.

I think it's fair enough to say that I've never known anything like this. If you try and point it out, people think you're nuts. Whenever someone mentions an adverse reaction, I say something like "they seem to be really common", and I get a bunny in the headlights look off them.

The cognitive dissonance concerning these shots is shocking and so very sad.

I cried when one of my children told me that my eldest daughter took the shot. I can only hope she got saline, but with the multiple shots being demanded, no one has that good of luck.

[AnotherLDSPatriot]

One of my friends got the booster last week. He told me how he had a blood clot on the lung after the first jab he had. I was quite open with him about the whole thing and told him I knew a woman who died that way... I suppose if Russian Roulette is your thing...

In Russian Roulette, only one chamber is loaded. When multiple chambers are loaded, it's a crap shoot.