LDS Freedom Forum

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:10 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:04 pm Great! Now, all you have to do is find a key-holding Jacobite to perform ordinance for you. Oh, wait...

Both Christ and Moroni state that the fullness of the gospel will be taken from the gentile and given to the House of Israel. While taken in context, the restoration has already happened at this point (read the chapters prior to 3 Nephi 16). I think the Lord is gonna shake things up.

Hold on... Let me shuffle over to this new goalpost location...

Yes. He is. I think that is the clear message of Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra, John, Nephi, etc.

Now, back to my previous comment. If you reject Christ's church on earth now, how likely do you think you'll be to have good standing after the shakeup? I mean, if you reject the prophets now, what's to keep you from rejecting the prophets of the future? Wouldn't you just continue to counsel the Lord and lean on your own understanding then too? In my opinion, the time to humble ourselves is now. If we wait for the Lord's return and the building of the New Jerusalem, we may just find our lamps are empty and the doors before us have been closed.

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:23 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:10 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:04 pm Great! Now, all you have to do is find a key-holding Jacobite to perform ordinance for you. Oh, wait...

Both Christ and Moroni state that the fullness of the gospel will be taken from the gentile and given to the House of Israel. While taken in context, the restoration has already happened at this point (read the chapters prior to 3 Nephi 16). I think the Lord is gonna shake things up.

Hold on... Let me shuffle over to this new goalpost location...

Yes. He is. I think that is the clear message of Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra, John, Nephi, etc.

Now, back to my previous comment. If you reject Christ's church on earth now, how likely do you think you'll be to have good standing after the shakeup? I mean, if you reject the prophets now, what's to keep you from rejecting the prophets of the future? Wouldn't you just continue to counsel the Lord and lean on your own understanding then too? In my opinion, the time to humble ourselves is now. If we wait for the Lord's return and the building of the New Jerusalem, we may just find our lamps are empty and the doors before us have been closed.

I fully believe the church has rejected much of Christ's doctrine, which includes a lot of what Joseph taught. So, what is a person to do in my position? I live the gospel as best I know how based upon the promptings of the Holy Ghost. If the apostasy referenced in 2 Thess. is in our day (a closer study of Mormon 8 adds a lot of weight to that argument), then what else is a disciple of Christ supposed to do? Live the teaching and precepts that you know are true. BTW, I haven't "rejected" all of what the prophets have said. I believe the Lord will certainly set in order His house and that prophets like John the Revelator will play a key role in that transition. The structure that is the current LDS org will have to be restructured from the ground up. In fact, I think the Lord will create new bottles (church of the firstborn) for new wine (higher doctrines).

Luke wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 2:50 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 8:01 am

JLHPROF wrote: ↑October 25th, 2022, 10:16 am

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 25th, 2022, 9:55 am

I don't follow. Please explain what you mean?

"you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant"

Which rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage in the new and everlasting covenant did you promise God you would keep? What marriage rites and ordinances exist that come after the sealing ceremony?
And is that currently possible to do under the "temporary suspension" as you phrased it?

So is it your belief that all the monogamous couples who have been sealed in the temple are covenant breakers?

Or is it your belief that they if the are faithful to each other and to God that they will one day be asked to live plural marriage at some future point in time when God reinstates the practice?

There’s no need to reinstate anything that hasn’t been taken away.

The highest authorities of the church, who hold the keys of the kingdom have said that God took it away. Within the Lord's one true church it is not currently allowed.

So yes, it was taken away and will need to be reinstated in a future day.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:43 pm

Luke wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 2:50 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 8:01 am

JLHPROF wrote: ↑October 25th, 2022, 10:16 am

"you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant"

Which rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage in the new and everlasting covenant did you promise God you would keep? What marriage rites and ordinances exist that come after the sealing ceremony?
And is that currently possible to do under the "temporary suspension" as you phrased it?

So is it your belief that all the monogamous couples who have been sealed in the temple are covenant breakers?

Or is it your belief that they if the are faithful to each other and to God that they will one day be asked to live plural marriage at some future point in time when God reinstates the practice?

There’s no need to reinstate anything that hasn’t been taken away.

The highest authorities of the church, who hold the keys of the kingdom have said that God took it away. Within the Lord's one true church it is not currently allowed.

So yes, it was taken away and will need to be reinstated in a future day.

Doesn’t really matter what men said.

What God said is entirely different.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 2:25 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 2:14 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 9:51 am

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 9:48 am You didn't address a single point a made. Until you do, there's nothing more to discuss.

Because we've discussed nearly every single one of these points somewhere on the forum before. We always end up disagreeing.

The points I made are valid. If you're going to make accusations and refuse to back down from them, you should address the counter arguments. If the truth is on your side as you claim, then you should be able to easily address each point. You shouldn't have to sidestep them.

You tend to take a very one-sided approach to a lot of these topics. Not always, but often. And like I said before, we've addressed these quite often on the forum. Not to burst your bubble, but we rarely come to a consensus (never really), and I have better things I like to do with my time. Sorry... not sorry.

If you are that passionate about these topics, you can go ahead and create a thread for each one, because each one would require a thread on its own.

FYI, I make no promises to engage. Read the first paragraph of mine again.

You're approach is actually much more one-sided than mine is. I'm much more in the middle on most topics than you are. If your views were less extreme and you would show even the tiniest willingness to admit that you could be blowing things out of proportion and could actually be wrong about a single one of your claims we would have a chance at coming to a consensus, at least some of the time.

But when you won't budge an inch, even when I make points and present evidence that would make most reasonable people back off at least a tiny bit, is it really any wonder that we don't ever come to any consensus?

Luke wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:45 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:43 pm

Luke wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 2:50 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 8:01 am

So is it your belief that all the monogamous couples who have been sealed in the temple are covenant breakers?

Or is it your belief that they if the are faithful to each other and to God that they will one day be asked to live plural marriage at some future point in time when God reinstates the practice?

There’s no need to reinstate anything that hasn’t been taken away.

The highest authorities of the church, who hold the keys of the kingdom have said that God took it away. Within the Lord's one true church it is not currently allowed.

So yes, it was taken away and will need to be reinstated in a future day.

Doesn’t really matter what men said.

What God said is entirely different.

It totally matters what the highest authorities of the church who hold the keys of the kingdom said. It is their calling to deliver God's word to the people.

Other than personal revelation, on what grounds do you claim that "What God said is entirely different?"

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:51 pm You're approach is actually much more one-sided than mine is. I'm much more in the middle on most topics than you are. If your views were less extreme and you would show even the tiniest willingness to admit that you could be blowing things out of proportion and could actually be wrong about a single one of your claims we would have a chance at coming to a consensus, at least some of the time.

But when you won't budge an inch, even when I make points and present evidence that would make most reasonable people back off at least a tiny bit, is it really any wonder that we don't ever come to any consensus?

Your "evidence" often overlooks a lot of history and scripture. I've repeatedly stated that these men speak out of both sides of their face. They are hypocrites. Telling us that we should seek our own revelation, yet almost in the same breath telling us they can never lead us astray, that they speak for the Lord, and we can trust them completely, is just plain wrong. No wonder many saints are really confused these days.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:20 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:51 pm You're approach is actually much more one-sided than mine is. I'm much more in the middle on most topics than you are. If your views were less extreme and you would show even the tiniest willingness to admit that you could be blowing things out of proportion and could actually be wrong about a single one of your claims we would have a chance at coming to a consensus, at least some of the time.

But when you won't budge an inch, even when I make points and present evidence that would make most reasonable people back off at least a tiny bit, is it really any wonder that we don't ever come to any consensus?

Your "evidence" often overlooks a lot of history and scripture. I've repeatedly stated that these men speak out of both sides of their face. They are hypocrites. Telling us that we should seek our own revelation, yet almost in the same breath telling us they can never lead us astray, that they speak for the Lord, and we can trust them completely, is just plain wrong. No wonder many saints are really confused these days.

Please provide some examples of where my evidence overlooks history and scripture.

Why is it so impossible in your mind for the "we can't lead you astray" and "pray and get confirmation for what we say" teachings to fit together, especially considering that the brethren teach that they are fallible and can make mistakes?

Do you seriously not see even the slightest possibility that you are blowing this out of proportion and that the brethren really do allow people to receive personal revelation and not follow or believe in every single thing that has ever come out of the mouths of church leaders past and present?

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:28 pm Please provide some examples of where my evidence overlooks history and scripture.

Why is it so impossible in your mind for the "we can't lead you astray" and "pray and get confirmation for what we say" teachings to fit together, especially considering that the brethren teach that they are fallible and can make mistakes?

Do you seriously not see even the slightest possibility that you are blowing this out of proportion and that the brethren really do allow people to receive personal revelation and not follow or believe in every single thing that has ever come out of the mouths of church leaders past and present?

I'm just as shocked that you can't see the difference between the "cannot lead astray" precept and the "#HearHim" mantra that really means #HearMe.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:35 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:28 pm Please provide some examples of where my evidence overlooks history and scripture.

Why is it so impossible in your mind for the "we can't lead you astray" and "pray and get confirmation for what we say" teachings to fit together, especially considering that the brethren teach that they are fallible and can make mistakes?

Do you seriously not see even the slightest possibility that you are blowing this out of proportion and that the brethren really do allow people to receive personal revelation and not follow or believe in every single thing that has ever come out of the mouths of church leaders past and present?

I'm just as shocked that you can't see the difference between the "cannot lead astray" precept and the "#HearHim" mantra that really means #HearMe.

Seriously?

When they ask people to share all of the ways they hear the Lord, you honestly think they really mean for people to share all of the different ways they here RMN?

You're kidding right?

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:41 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:35 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:28 pm Please provide some examples of where my evidence overlooks history and scripture.

Why is it so impossible in your mind for the "we can't lead you astray" and "pray and get confirmation for what we say" teachings to fit together, especially considering that the brethren teach that they are fallible and can make mistakes?

Do you seriously not see even the slightest possibility that you are blowing this out of proportion and that the brethren really do allow people to receive personal revelation and not follow or believe in every single thing that has ever come out of the mouths of church leaders past and present?

I'm just as shocked that you can't see the difference between the "cannot lead astray" precept and the "#HearHim" mantra that really means #HearMe.

Seriously?

When they ask people to share all of the ways they hear the Lord, you honestly think they really mean for people to share all of the different ways they here RMN?

You're kidding right?

Think about it. When Nelson allows people to set him on a pedestal where they say, "when Nelson speaks, he speaks for the Lord." What do you think that means? Rasband gave no qualifier, he didn't say "but only when guided by the HG." In fact, in that same talk, he again repeated the anti-Christian dogma of "he can never lead you astray."

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:43 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:41 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:35 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:28 pm Please provide some examples of where my evidence overlooks history and scripture.

Why is it so impossible in your mind for the "we can't lead you astray" and "pray and get confirmation for what we say" teachings to fit together, especially considering that the brethren teach that they are fallible and can make mistakes?

Do you seriously not see even the slightest possibility that you are blowing this out of proportion and that the brethren really do allow people to receive personal revelation and not follow or believe in every single thing that has ever come out of the mouths of church leaders past and present?

I'm just as shocked that you can't see the difference between the "cannot lead astray" precept and the "#HearHim" mantra that really means #HearMe.

Seriously?

When they ask people to share all of the ways they hear the Lord, you honestly think they really mean for people to share all of the different ways they here RMN?

You're kidding right?

Think about it. When Nelson allows people to set him on a pedestal where they say, "when Nelson speaks, he speaks for the Lord." What do you think that means? Rasband gave no qualifier, he didn't say "but only when guided by the HG." In fact, in that same talk, he again repeated the anti-Christian dogma of "he can never lead you astray."

I'm sorry, but it's obvious to me that you are being disingenuous here.

The statement you refer to didn't happen in a vaccume. Nelson speaks for the Lord means that it is his calling to deliver the Lord's words to the people. It does NOT mean that everything he says is straight from God's own mouth.

The teaching that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such and that the Q15 aren't infallible and can make mistakes has never been rescinded.

You can't just take a couple of quotes in isolation, interpret them in the most extreme way, and then ignore everything else the brethren have said on the subject. That's disingenuous.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:54 pm The teaching that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such and that the Q15 aren't infallible and can make mistakes has never been rescinded.

You can't just take a couple of quotes in isolation, interpret them in the most extreme way, and then ignore everything else the brethren have said on the subject. That's disingenuous.

I'm not isolating a few quotes, I'm pointing out their hypocrisy. I know they say #HearHim. I know they quote Joseph. But guess what, that quote from Joseph also means they need to drop the "we cannot lead you astray." What is it about this definitive statement that you don't get? Joseph's words are conditional, the "cannot lead astray" precept is definitive. Striving to promote both ideologies is hypocritical.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:39 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:23 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:10 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 3:04 pm Great! Now, all you have to do is find a key-holding Jacobite to perform ordinance for you. Oh, wait...

Both Christ and Moroni state that the fullness of the gospel will be taken from the gentile and given to the House of Israel. While taken in context, the restoration has already happened at this point (read the chapters prior to 3 Nephi 16). I think the Lord is gonna shake things up.

Hold on... Let me shuffle over to this new goalpost location...

Yes. He is. I think that is the clear message of Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra, John, Nephi, etc.

Now, back to my previous comment. If you reject Christ's church on earth now, how likely do you think you'll be to have good standing after the shakeup? I mean, if you reject the prophets now, what's to keep you from rejecting the prophets of the future? Wouldn't you just continue to counsel the Lord and lean on your own understanding then too? In my opinion, the time to humble ourselves is now. If we wait for the Lord's return and the building of the New Jerusalem, we may just find our lamps are empty and the doors before us have been closed.

I fully believe the church has rejected much of Christ's doctrine, which includes a lot of what Joseph taught. So, what is a person to do in my position? I live the gospel as best I know how based upon the promptings of the Holy Ghost. If the apostasy referenced in 2 Thess. is in our day (a closer study of Mormon 8 adds a lot of weight to that argument), then what else is a disciple of Christ supposed to do? Live the teaching and precepts that you know are true. BTW, I haven't "rejected" all of what the prophets have said. I believe the Lord will certainly set in order His house and that prophets like John the Revelator will play a key role in that transition. The structure that is the current LDS org will have to be restructured from the ground up. In fact, I think the Lord will create new bottles (church of the firstborn) for new wine (higher doctrines).

"I fully believe the church has rejected much of Christ's doctrine..."

Such as?

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:00 pm "I fully believe the church has rejected much of Christ's doctrine..."

Such as?

They have changed the laws and ordinances of the temple. Some of it damningly so. The blood oaths language has been removed, but the hand gestures still remain.

They have taught false, anti-Christian dogmas, like the "cannot lead astray" philosophy.

They teach an incorrect tithe, and they tithe the poor. Read the BoM for a proper understanding of how we care for those in need.

They have made themselves gatekeepers to covenant making/keeping. You have to "sustain" them in order to make a covenant with God. A closer study of how the church defines "sustain", means that you do what they say. And yes, they literally say that in their literature.

They've also promoted polygamy as having been taught by Joseph, which is a lie. And they believe in polygamous sealings in the temple today. You can be sealed to more than one woman.

They teach that you can receive revelation, but only if it doesn't contradict their revelation. This is defined as priestcraft by Nephi in the BoM. They set themselves up as a light.

That's a starter list.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:00 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:54 pm The teaching that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such and that the Q15 aren't infallible and can make mistakes has never been rescinded.

You can't just take a couple of quotes in isolation, interpret them in the most extreme way, and then ignore everything else the brethren have said on the subject. That's disingenuous.

I'm not isolating a few quotes, I'm pointing out their hypocrisy. I know they say #HearHim. I know they quote Joseph. But guess what, that quote from Joseph also means they need to drop the "we cannot lead you astray." What is it about this definitive statement that you don't get? Joseph's words are conditional, the "cannot lead astray" precept is definitive. Striving to promote both ideologies is hypocritical.

You're totally isolating a couple of quotes and putting the most extreme interpretation on them, which you know full well isn't consistent with other quotes. That's disingenuous.

As for the "cannot lead astray" it's not definitive in the way you claim at all. It's totally open to interpretation.

In light of the teachings that the brethren aren't infallible and can make mistakes, are only prophets when acting as such, and for each member to pray and receive confirmation from God about their teachings, your extremist interpretation that "cannot lead astray" means the brethren can't ever teach or say anything wrong and that they expect to be worshipped as infallible gods simply doesn't hold water.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:26 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:00 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:54 pm The teaching that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such and that the Q15 aren't infallible and can make mistakes has never been rescinded.

You can't just take a couple of quotes in isolation, interpret them in the most extreme way, and then ignore everything else the brethren have said on the subject. That's disingenuous.

I'm not isolating a few quotes, I'm pointing out their hypocrisy. I know they say #HearHim. I know they quote Joseph. But guess what, that quote from Joseph also means they need to drop the "we cannot lead you astray." What is it about this definitive statement that you don't get? Joseph's words are conditional, the "cannot lead astray" precept is definitive. Striving to promote both ideologies is hypocritical.

You're totally isolating a couple of quotes and putting the most extreme interpretation on them, which you know full well isn't consistent with other quotes. That's disingenuous.

As for the "cannot lead astray" it's not definitive in the way you claim at all. It's totally open to interpretation.

In light of the teachings that the brethren aren't infallible and can make mistakes, are only prophets when acting as such, and for each member to pray and receive confirmation from God about their teachings, your extremist interpretation that "cannot lead astray" means the brethren can't ever teach or say anything wrong and that they expect to be worshipped as infallible gods simply doesn't hold water.

Definition of cannot
: to be unable to do otherwise than

You can twist words all you want.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:43 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:26 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:00 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 4:54 pm The teaching that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such and that the Q15 aren't infallible and can make mistakes has never been rescinded.

You can't just take a couple of quotes in isolation, interpret them in the most extreme way, and then ignore everything else the brethren have said on the subject. That's disingenuous.

I'm not isolating a few quotes, I'm pointing out their hypocrisy. I know they say #HearHim. I know they quote Joseph. But guess what, that quote from Joseph also means they need to drop the "we cannot lead you astray." What is it about this definitive statement that you don't get? Joseph's words are conditional, the "cannot lead astray" precept is definitive. Striving to promote both ideologies is hypocritical.

You're totally isolating a couple of quotes and putting the most extreme interpretation on them, which you know full well isn't consistent with other quotes. That's disingenuous.

As for the "cannot lead astray" it's not definitive in the way you claim at all. It's totally open to interpretation.

In light of the teachings that the brethren aren't infallible and can make mistakes, are only prophets when acting as such, and for each member to pray and receive confirmation from God about their teachings, your extremist interpretation that "cannot lead astray" means the brethren can't ever teach or say anything wrong and that they expect to be worshipped as infallible gods simply doesn't hold water.

Definition of cannot
: to be unable to do otherwise than

You can twist words all you want.

Yeah, the meaning of "cannot" is not in question, but the meaning of "lead astray" is.

There's zero indication that the brethren define "cannot lead astray" to mean that they can't make any mistakes and can never teach anything false ever.

Especially since they literally say that they aren't infallible and can make mistakes and for the members to pray about what they say.

Maybe we need Maxwell to come back from the dead to teach the other church leaders what words mean. Interestingly, I couldn’t find a single quote from Maxwell parroting this phrase. He most likely knew it was wrong.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:47 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:43 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:26 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:00 pm
I'm not isolating a few quotes, I'm pointing out their hypocrisy. I know they say #HearHim. I know they quote Joseph. But guess what, that quote from Joseph also means they need to drop the "we cannot lead you astray." What is it about this definitive statement that you don't get? Joseph's words are conditional, the "cannot lead astray" precept is definitive. Striving to promote both ideologies is hypocritical.

You're totally isolating a couple of quotes and putting the most extreme interpretation on them, which you know full well isn't consistent with other quotes. That's disingenuous.

As for the "cannot lead astray" it's not definitive in the way you claim at all. It's totally open to interpretation.

In light of the teachings that the brethren aren't infallible and can make mistakes, are only prophets when acting as such, and for each member to pray and receive confirmation from God about their teachings, your extremist interpretation that "cannot lead astray" means the brethren can't ever teach or say anything wrong and that they expect to be worshipped as infallible gods simply doesn't hold water.

Definition of cannot
: to be unable to do otherwise than

You can twist words all you want.

Yeah, the meaning of "cannot" is not in question, but the meaning of "lead astray" is.

There's zero indication that the brethren define "cannot lead astray" to mean that they can't make any mistake and can never teach anything false ever.

I don’t care what they indicate, that’s the meaning of those words. These men misconstrue language often. For example, Sustain means you do what they say. That is also false.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:49 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:47 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:43 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:26 pm

You're totally isolating a couple of quotes and putting the most extreme interpretation on them, which you know full well isn't consistent with other quotes. That's disingenuous.

As for the "cannot lead astray" it's not definitive in the way you claim at all. It's totally open to interpretation.

In light of the teachings that the brethren aren't infallible and can make mistakes, are only prophets when acting as such, and for each member to pray and receive confirmation from God about their teachings, your extremist interpretation that "cannot lead astray" means the brethren can't ever teach or say anything wrong and that they expect to be worshipped as infallible gods simply doesn't hold water.

Definition of cannot
: to be unable to do otherwise than

You can twist words all you want.

Yeah, the meaning of "cannot" is not in question, but the meaning of "lead astray" is.

There's zero indication that the brethren define "cannot lead astray" to mean that they can't make any mistake and can never teach anything false ever.

I don’t care what they indicate, that’s the meaning of those words. These men misconstrue language often. For example, Sustain means you do what they say. That is also false.

No, that's not the meaning of those words and you know it.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:51 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:49 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:47 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:43 pm

Definition of cannot
: to be unable to do otherwise than

You can twist words all you want.

Yeah, the meaning of "cannot" is not in question, but the meaning of "lead astray" is.

There's zero indication that the brethren define "cannot lead astray" to mean that they can't make any mistake and can never teach anything false ever.

I don’t care what they indicate, that’s the meaning of those words. These men misconstrue language often. For example, Sustain means you do what they say. That is also false.

No, that's not the meaning of those words and you know it.

That’s what I said. I quoted the dictionary on “cannot.”

I can show you the quote where the church teaches that to “sustain” means you do what they say. To the innocent young women nonetheless.

From the manual:

As members of the Church, we have the opportunity to sustain those the Lord has called to serve. We raise our hand to indicate that we sustain the General Authorities and officers of the Church and each of the leaders in our wards and stakes—including Young Women class presidencies. Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them.

Truth mixed with falsehoods.

Definition of obey
transitive verb
1 : to follow the commands or guidance of
He always obeys his parents.
2 : to conform to or comply with
obey an order

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:56 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:51 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:49 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 26th, 2022, 5:47 pm

Yeah, the meaning of "cannot" is not in question, but the meaning of "lead astray" is.

There's zero indication that the brethren define "cannot lead astray" to mean that they can't make any mistake and can never teach anything false ever.

I don’t care what they indicate, that’s the meaning of those words. These men misconstrue language often. For example, Sustain means you do what they say. That is also false.

No, that's not the meaning of those words and you know it.

That’s what I said. I quoted the dictionary on “cannot.”

I can show you the quote where the church teaches that to “sustain” means you do what they say. To the innocent young women nonetheless.

From the manual:

As members of the Church, we have the opportunity to sustain those the Lord has called to serve. We raise our hand to indicate that we sustain the General Authorities and officers of the Church and each of the leaders in our wards and stakes—including Young Women class presidencies. Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them.

Truth mixed with falsehoods.

Again, the meaning of "cannot" is not in question.

It's the meaning of "lead astray" that is in question. And again, there is zero indication that this means that the brethren claim to be infallible gods who are incapable of making mistakes and that everything they say and do is directly from God and unquestionable.

To be completely honest I would prefer that the manual said to "listen" to their counsel, instead of "obey" their counsel. I think that obey is a definitely over the top.

However, it does not say that Sustain means that you MUST obey their counsel no matter what. There's still plenty of room for members to make their own decisions. In fact I would say that virtually no member who raises their hand to sustain their leaders does everything the leaders say without question. People always decide for themselves what they will or will not do.

Pure lies and deceit from the church through their own omission:

Jesus compares cutting off an offending hand or foot to discontinuing associations that may lead one astray.

Who is the eye again? Why did the omit it? And what did the eye do? Transgress.

Definition of transgress
intransitive verb
1 : to violate a command or law : SIN
2 : to go beyond a boundary or limit
transitive verb
1 : to go beyond limits set or prescribed by : VIOLATE
transgress divine law
2 : to pass beyond or go over (a limit or boundary)

Lying to the members is a sin. Remember when they parroted the government?

a. “We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population.” WRONG!
b. “Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective.” WRONG!
c. “We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders.” WRONG!