3 Nephi 21 disproves claims to Christ's church

[Gadianton Slayer]

If the bar for being “led by visions” is that one person in the entire organization claims to have had one, then that phrase is meaningless.

Also, LDS members or even “church leaders” are not the only ones capable of having visions… so I’m not sure what this discussion is about.

This isn't rocket science. If members and leaders are having visions, then the claim that the church is not being led by visions at all is false.

And since I have first hand knowledge that this is happening and there have been reports of members at all levels having visions, then logically the church is in fact being led by visions, at minimum to a small extent.

Then what is your definition of “lead” ???

There are 15 men who “lead” the LDS organization. To refer to bishops as those who “lead” because they hold a position is ridiculous. They have no say in the doctrine or policy of the org, but those 15 do.

The current 15 who make changes to policy and doctrine (aka: “lead”) are not led by God.

They are however filthy liars who still refuse to take ownership for their involvement vigorously promoting mRNA injections that are killing thousands and perhaps millions of people at the current rate. That alone is a hill to die on, and proof of their deeply seeded corruption.

They are certainly led by god, little g.

[darknesstolight]

can a bishop receive revelation for the Church?

Yes, within his stewardship. You can ask the same question as many times as you want to, but the answer is the same.

You are now arguing against the First Presidency and official Church doctrine.

How by proving that the First Presidency and offical position of the church is that a bishop is a leader of the Church?

A bishop having a vision is not proof that the Church is being lead by visions.

Yes it is. You can claim that it isn't until the cows come home, but it still is.

LDS Watchman if you're implying that any Bishop or SP for that matter can do something to lead the church as a whole, you're a bit out there! If that were the case, then the several bishops that I know that were ex'ed would mean the church is astray as well. Bishops serve in the church but are local leaders and have absolutely no sway on church doctrine, direction, teachings, CES, BYU, etc... So, while they may be classified as church leadership, that would be like saying my old manager at Boeing was Boeing leadership when he never, ever counselled with the corporate leadership types. Just clarifying the overblown statements. The fact is how any bishop goes has no influence on how the church as a whole goes..... BTW even true of SP's and Area 70's, our A70 did things during COVID that other, wiser A70's did not do, and I try hard no to judge the church by his low standards and lack of inspiration. -TheDuke

...

[HereWeGo]

so I’m not sure what this discussion is about.

DTL answered this question quite nicely, above on this page. It is people defending their idols.

[LDS Watchman]

Then what is your definition of “lead” ???

The standard definition.

[LDS Watchman]

so I’m not sure what this discussion is about.

DTL answered this question quite nicely, above on this page. It is people defending their idols.

Nah, just someone exposing the false accusations of disaffected former believers who have an axe to grind against their former faith.

[LDS Watchman]

can a bishop receive revelation for the Church?

Yes, within his stewardship. You can ask the same question as many times as you want to, but the answer is the same.

You are now arguing against the First Presidency and official Church doctrine.

How by proving that the First Presidency and offical position of the church is that a bishop is a leader of the Church?

A bishop having a vision is not proof that the Church is being lead by visions.

Yes it is. You can claim that it isn't until the cows come home, but it still is.

LDS Watchman if you're implying that any Bishop or SP for that matter can do something to lead the church as a whole, you're a bit out there! If that were the case, then the several bishops that I know that were ex'ed would mean the church is astray as well. Bishops serve in the church but are local leaders and have absolutely no sway on church doctrine, direction, teachings, CES, BYU, etc... So, while they may be classified as church leadership, that would be like saying my old manager at Boeing was Boeing leadership when he never, ever counselled with the corporate leadership types. Just clarifying the overblown statements. The fact is how any bishop goes has no influence on how the church as a whole goes..... BTW even true of SP's and Area 70's, our A70 did things during COVID that other, wiser A70's did not do, and I try hard no to judge the church by his low standards and lack of inspiration. -TheDuke

...

Copying and pasting The Duke's interjection into the conversation doesn't change the facts.

Nice try, though.

[darknesstolight]

can a bishop receive revelation for the Church?

Yes, within his stewardship. You can ask the same question as many times as you want to, but the answer is the same.

You are now arguing against the First Presidency and official Church doctrine.

How by proving that the First Presidency and offical position of the church is that a bishop is a leader of the Church?

A bishop having a vision is not proof that the Church is being lead by visions.

Yes it is. You can claim that it isn't until the cows come home, but it still is.

LDS Watchman if you're implying that any Bishop or SP for that matter can do something to lead the church as a whole, you're a bit out there! If that were the case, then the several bishops that I know that were ex'ed would mean the church is astray as well. Bishops serve in the church but are local leaders and have absolutely no sway on church doctrine, direction, teachings, CES, BYU, etc... So, while they may be classified as church leadership, that would be like saying my old manager at Boeing was Boeing leadership when he never, ever counselled with the corporate leadership types. Just clarifying the overblown statements. The fact is how any bishop goes has no influence on how the church as a whole goes..... BTW even true of SP's and Area 70's, our A70 did things during COVID that other, wiser A70's did not do, and I try hard no to judge the church by his low standards and lack of inspiration. -TheDuke

...

Copying and pasting The Duke's interjection into the conversation doesn't change the facts.

Nice try, though.

Yes the facts have not changed.

...

[LDS Watchman]

Yes, within his stewardship. You can ask the same question as many times as you want to, but the answer is the same.


How by proving that the First Presidency and offical position of the church is that a bishop is a leader of the Church?


Yes it is. You can claim that it isn't until the cows come home, but it still is.

LDS Watchman if you're implying that any Bishop or SP for that matter can do something to lead the church as a whole, you're a bit out there! If that were the case, then the several bishops that I know that were ex'ed would mean the church is astray as well. Bishops serve in the church but are local leaders and have absolutely no sway on church doctrine, direction, teachings, CES, BYU, etc... So, while they may be classified as church leadership, that would be like saying my old manager at Boeing was Boeing leadership when he never, ever counselled with the corporate leadership types. Just clarifying the overblown statements. The fact is how any bishop goes has no influence on how the church as a whole goes..... BTW even true of SP's and Area 70's, our A70 did things during COVID that other, wiser A70's did not do, and I try hard no to judge the church by his low standards and lack of inspiration. -TheDuke

...

Copying and pasting The Duke's interjection into the conversation doesn't change the facts.

Nice try, though.

Yes the facts have not changed.

...

Glad you finally realized that. Bravo.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Then what is your definition of “lead” ???

The standard definition.

Ok, then the rest of my post still stands. The men who lead your organization have blood on their hands.

They are either stupid, or evil.

Lucky me, someone just thanked me for a post in this thread that ties in nicely:

viewtopic.php?p=1234510#p1234510

[LDS Watchman]

Then what is your definition of “lead” ???

The standard definition.

Ok, then the rest of my post still stands. The men who lead your organization have blood on their hands.

Correction, you and your dad claim that the FP and Q12 have blood on their hands. Your grievances with the church over the COVID response trumps anything and everything else about the church. At the end of the day you two will ALWAYS fall back to this without fail.

[darknesstolight]

LDS Watchman if you're implying that any Bishop or SP for that matter can do something to lead the church as a whole, you're a bit out there! If that were the case, then the several bishops that I know that were ex'ed would mean the church is astray as well. Bishops serve in the church but are local leaders and have absolutely no sway on church doctrine, direction, teachings, CES, BYU, etc... So, while they may be classified as church leadership, that would be like saying my old manager at Boeing was Boeing leadership when he never, ever counselled with the corporate leadership types. Just clarifying the overblown statements. The fact is how any bishop goes has no influence on how the church as a whole goes..... BTW even true of SP's and Area 70's, our A70 did things during COVID that other, wiser A70's did not do, and I try hard no to judge the church by his low standards and lack of inspiration. -TheDuke

...

Copying and pasting The Duke's interjection into the conversation doesn't change the facts.

Nice try, though.

Yes the facts have not changed.

...

Glad you finally realized that. Bravo.

I didn't finally realize that. The facts have never changed. Nothing happened to the facts when I quoted TheDuke.

...

[LDS Watchman]

The facts have never changed. Nothing happened to the facts when I quoted TheDuke.

Yes, the fact that a local church leader, such as a bishop, is most definitely a church leader, didn't change even though you quoted a comment by Duke I had already addressed. Glad we cleared that up.

[darknesstolight]

The facts have never changed. Nothing happened to the facts when I quoted TheDuke.

Yes, the fact that a local church leader such as a bishop is most definitely a church leader, didn't change even though you quoted a comment by Duke I had already addressed. Glad we cleared that up.

That wasn't what we were talking about.

Can you please provide official church material that teaches that a local bishop is leading the Church via their visions.

...

[Gadianton Slayer]

Then what is your definition of “lead” ???

The standard definition.

Ok, then the rest of my post still stands. The men who lead your organization have blood on their hands.

Correction, you and your dad claim that the FP and Q12 have blood on their hands. Your grievances with the church over the COVID response trumps anything and everything else about the church. At the end of the day you two will ALWAYS fall back to this without fail.

If their response to covid doesn’t upset your very soul, then the problem is on you. I don’t need to explain that, there’s ample evidence to be found. However the evidence to support what your leaders did is nonexistent. They lied. They gaslit. They continue to keep silent. The information is all out there, my friend. The truth continues to be brought out, and more of the lies are coming forward. Your supposed loyalty to those men is blinding your ability to rationally observe what’s right in front of you, for that I am deeply sorry. Anyone who tries to defend or brush off the absolutely vile approach to covid is either evil, ignorant, or mentally incompetent.

Pointing out that I frequently refer to this absolute sh*tshow does nothing to support your argument. You reply with that nonsense because you have no legitimate response, unless of course you actually support the actions and opinions of those men.

[LDS Watchman]

The facts have never changed. Nothing happened to the facts when I quoted TheDuke.

Yes, the fact that a local church leader such as a bishop is most definitely a church leader, didn't change even though you quoted a comment by Duke I had already addressed. Glad we cleared that up.

That wasn't what we were talking about.

That's exactly what we were talking about.

And I can quote plenty of official Church sources that say that a Bishop is a church leader and is to receive revelation for the members of the church within his stewardship.

[darknesstolight]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints follows the same pattern as the church that Jesus Christ established during His mortal ministry, restored in modern times. He remains the head of the Church and directs His chosen servants as they lead.

The leaders of the worldwide Church are known as General Authorities and General Officers. General Authorities include the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, General Authority Seventies, and the Presiding Bishopric. General Officers include the General Presidencies of the Relief Society, Primary, Sunday School, Young Women, and Young Men organizations.

The First Presidency is the highest governing body of the Church. Along with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the First Presidency are special witnesses of Jesus Christ. They seek the Lord’s guidance as they oversee the affairs of the Church.

General Authorities, General Officers, and other Church leaders likewise seek divine guidance as they love and serve specific groups of Church members throughout the world.

The First Presidency is the highest governing body of the Church. Every leader in the Church answers to the head of the Church, which is the first presidency. These men, along with the 12 apostles, constitute the "leaders of the Church". They set the trends, they guide the ship, they are in charge, they are in control, they are the one's who are responsible and accountable for what happens to the Church and within the Church. The President is literally the CEO of the organization. They are the leader of the Church. They aren't just A leader, but they are THE leader and they are the one who are LEADING THE CHURCH. And if THE leader of the Church is not leading by vision, or by revelation, or by seership, or by prophecy, then THE CHURCH is not being lead by those things either. It might be happening within the Church, but if THE leader isn't seeing, or revealing, etc. then THE Church isn't being LEAD by such.

This is such straightforward logic and reason that only an idiot or a liar would argue with this and my father said that when you argue with an idiot you have two idiots arguing.

...

[LDS Watchman]

The standard definition.

Ok, then the rest of my post still stands. The men who lead your organization have blood on their hands.

Correction, you and your dad claim that the FP and Q12 have blood on their hands. Your grievances with the church over the COVID response trumps anything and everything else about the church. At the end of the day you two will ALWAYS fall back to this without fail.

If their response to covid doesn’t upset your very soul, then the problem is on you. I don’t need to explain that, there’s ample evidence to be found. However the evidence to support what your leaders did is nonexistent. They lied. They gaslit. They continue to keep silent. The information is all out there, my friend. The truth continues to be brought out, and more of the lies are coming forward. Your supposed loyalty to those men is blinding your ability to rationally observe what’s right in front of you, for that I am deeply sorry. Anyone who tries to defend or brush off the absolutely vile approach to covid is either evil, ignorant, or mentally incompetent.

Pointing out that I frequently refer to this absolute sh*tshow does nothing to support your argument. You reply with that nonsense because you have no legitimate response, unless of course you actually support the actions and opinions of those men.

No, this isn't correct. Here's what is correct, however:

Unlike you and your dad, I can look at the Church's COVID response, which I also have concerns over, without it trumping everything else. It isn't the end all be all for me. And here's why:

Long before COVID, I had already realized that the leaders are fallible and that there are some serious problems in the church. I had also already studied out all of the controversial aspects of church history and made my peace with most of them. So the COVID response was not earth shattering to me.

I have a firm testimony that the brethren hold the keys and that this is still the Lord's church, warts and all. You trying to play the "brethren have blood on their hands for encouraging the vax trump card" doesn't change that.

Back to the topic at hand. I know for a fact that there are members and leaders who have had visions, which in my book plainly proves that the church is at least led by visions to a small degree. You and the others can try to deny or downplay these visions all you want to. It doesn't change a thing.

[LDS Watchman]

The First Presidency is the highest governing body of the Church. Along with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the First Presidency are special witnesses of Jesus Christ. They seek the Lord’s guidance as they oversee the affairs of the Church.

General Authorities, General Officers, and other Church leaders likewise seek divine guidance as they love and serve specific groups of Church members throughout the world.

This is such straightforward logic and reason that only an idiot or a liar would argue with this

The part of your quote I highlighted in red is as straightforward as it gets.

Other leaders of the church (like Bishops) also seek and receive divine guidance (occasionally in the form of visions) as they lead, love, and serve members over whom they have stewardship.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Ok, then the rest of my post still stands. The men who lead your organization have blood on their hands.

Correction, you and your dad claim that the FP and Q12 have blood on their hands. Your grievances with the church over the COVID response trumps anything and everything else about the church. At the end of the day you two will ALWAYS fall back to this without fail.

If their response to covid doesn’t upset your very soul, then the problem is on you. I don’t need to explain that, there’s ample evidence to be found. However the evidence to support what your leaders did is nonexistent. They lied. They gaslit. They continue to keep silent. The information is all out there, my friend. The truth continues to be brought out, and more of the lies are coming forward. Your supposed loyalty to those men is blinding your ability to rationally observe what’s right in front of you, for that I am deeply sorry. Anyone who tries to defend or brush off the absolutely vile approach to covid is either evil, ignorant, or mentally incompetent.

Pointing out that I frequently refer to this absolute sh*tshow does nothing to support your argument. You reply with that nonsense because you have no legitimate response, unless of course you actually support the actions and opinions of those men.

No, this isn't correct. Here's what is correct, however:

Unlike you and your dad, I can look at the Church's COVID response, which I also have concerns over, without it trumping everything else. It isn't the end all be all for me. And here's why:

Long before COVID, I had already realized that the leaders are fallible and that there are some serious problems in the church. I had also already studied out all of the controversial aspects of church history and made my peace with most of them. So the COVID response was not earth shattering to me.

I have a firm testimony that the brethren hold the keys and that this is still the Lord's church, warts and all. You trying to play the "brethren have blood on their hands for encouraging the vax trump card" doesn't change that.

Back to the topic at hand. I know for a fact that there are members and leaders who have had visions, which in my book plainly proves that the church is at least led by visions to a small degree. You and the others can try to deny or downplay these visions all you want to. It doesn't change a thing.

1. I don’t think that you take their response serious enough. Their encouragement based upon the factual information that these are dangerous is damning, no matter how much you want to downplay it. I’m not going to argue that more, your conscience is your own.

2. Random members with temporary volunteer positions selected by other men having dreams doesn’t constitute an entire organization being led by God. If someone having a vision means that their organization is led by visions, then the same can be said for every other organization on the planet.

[LDS Watchman]

1. I don’t think that you take their response serious enough.

Yeah, no kidding. And I think you are blowing it way out of proportion. Duck Rabbit as you say.

2. Random members with temporary volunteer positions selected by other men having dreams doesn’t constitute an entire organization being led by God. If someone having a vision means that their organization is led by visions, then the same can be said for every other organization on the planet.

Church leaders and other members who literally make up the church (body of believers) receiving guidance through visions absolutely means that the church is led by visions, even if only to a very small degree. That's basic logic.

People who are not members of the Lord's church can likewise be guided by visions, if God wills it. I have never said otherwise.

[Gadianton Slayer]

1. I don’t think that you take their response serious enough.

Yeah, no kidding. And I think you are blowing it way out of proportion. Duck Rabbit as you say.

2. Random members with temporary volunteer positions selected by other men having dreams doesn’t constitute an entire organization being led by God. If someone having a vision means that their organization is led by visions, then the same can be said for every other organization on the planet.

Church leaders and other members who literally make up the church (body of believers) receiving guidance through visions absolutely means that the church is led by visions, even if only to a very small degree. That's basic logic.

People who are not members of the Lord's church can likewise be guided by visions, if God wills it. I have never said otherwise.

So there’s no difference between members and non-members. Both can be led by visions.

[LDS Watchman]

1. I don’t think that you take their response serious enough.

Yeah, no kidding. And I think you are blowing it way out of proportion. Duck Rabbit as you say.

2. Random members with temporary volunteer positions selected by other men having dreams doesn’t constitute an entire organization being led by God. If someone having a vision means that their organization is led by visions, then the same can be said for every other organization on the planet.

Church leaders and other members who literally make up the church (body of believers) receiving guidance through visions absolutely means that the church is led by visions, even if only to a very small degree. That's basic logic.

People who are not members of the Lord's church can likewise be guided by visions, if God wills it. I have never said otherwise.

So there’s no difference between members and non-members. Both can be led by visions.

Both members and non-members can be led visions.

This does NOT mean that there is no difference between them. Members are part of the Lord's one true church and non-members are not, members have priesthood authority and non-members do not, members have received the saving ordinances of the gospel by proper authority from God and non-members have not, etc.

[Gadianton Slayer]

1. I don’t think that you take their response serious enough.

Yeah, no kidding. And I think you are blowing it way out of proportion. Duck Rabbit as you say.

2. Random members with temporary volunteer positions selected by other men having dreams doesn’t constitute an entire organization being led by God. If someone having a vision means that their organization is led by visions, then the same can be said for every other organization on the planet.

Church leaders and other members who literally make up the church (body of believers) receiving guidance through visions absolutely means that the church is led by visions, even if only to a very small degree. That's basic logic.

People who are not members of the Lord's church can likewise be guided by visions, if God wills it. I have never said otherwise.

So there’s no difference between members and non-members. Both can be led by visions.

Both members and non-members can be led visions.

This does NOT mean that there is no difference between them. Members of are part of the Lord's one true church and non-members are not, members have priesthood authority and non-members do not, members have received the saving ordinances of the gospel by proper authority from God and non-members have not, etc.

I’ll let God dictate who has authority and priesthood, but you can continue to let a bunch of old men decide for you.

Lmao. “That’s not how it is!”

Well, men decide if you get to join, and men decide if you are removed. It’s baseless to argue that every person who joins should be let in, or that every person excommunicated was for the right reason or was approved of by God… Helmuth Hubener for example.

Obviously men have an amount of personal sway in their decisions, so priesthood authority cannot be tied to membership. Otherwise you’re saying that those fallible men can dictate your worthiness and authority to utilize the power of God.

To say that you in fact can dictate who holds priesthood by limiting it to their membership which can be revoked by men, you are displaying the exact unrighteous dominion referenced in D&C 121 which would remove any priesthood or authority you supposedly had.

As for the church, we’ve had our chats. Based upon all evidence we’ve discussed I’m still unable to understand your pretzel making skills on the subject. I don’t reply for you anymore, just when I want to make a point or get my thoughts in the air for others to see (or pure entertainment, which is the choice as of late). As much as I wish I could trust you to have genuine interactions on this forum, you’ve proven that it’s incredibly difficult. Why? Well, you lied about not creating multiple aliases posting with different personalities (not that I believed for a second that Logan, Matthias, and Atticus weren’t the same person). After repeatedly denying these connections you’ve now chosen a new alias that encompasses the others, but that doesn’t change the past. I mention this because you like to refer to personal attacks… and this section of my post is indeed personal. But I think the intent and genuineness of a person is incredibly important when having these types of discussions. Because of this history and the obvious mental games that you love to play, it’s impossible for me to continue discussing with you as if I’m talking with a real human being. I think the only way I could be swayed to see you and your arguments in any other way would be to sit down face-to-face, which likely will never happen. Until then there’s no reason for me to trust you or to value your interpretations.

I’m done replying for the time being, the games have been fun.

[LDS Watchman]

Yeah, no kidding. And I think you are blowing it way out of proportion. Duck Rabbit as you say.


Church leaders and other members who literally make up the church (body of believers) receiving guidance through visions absolutely means that the church is led by visions, even if only to a very small degree. That's basic logic.

People who are not members of the Lord's church can likewise be guided by visions, if God wills it. I have never said otherwise.

So there’s no difference between members and non-members. Both can be led by visions.

Both members and non-members can be led visions.

This does NOT mean that there is no difference between them. Members of are part of the Lord's one true church and non-members are not, members have priesthood authority and non-members do not, members have received the saving ordinances of the gospel by proper authority from God and non-members have not, etc.

I’ll let God dictate who has authority and priesthood, but you can continue to let a bunch of old men decide for you.

Lmao. “That’s not how it is!”

Well, men decide if you get to join, and men decide if you are removed. It’s baseless to argue that every person who joins should be let in, or that every person excommunicated was for the right reason or was approved of by God… Helmuth Hubener for example.

Obviously men have an amount of personal sway in their decisions, so priesthood authority cannot be tied to membership. Otherwise you’re saying that those fallible men can dictate your worthiness and authority to utilize the power of God.

To say that you in fact can dictate who holds priesthood by limiting it to their membership which can be revoked by men, you are displaying the exact unrighteous dominion referenced in D&C 121 which would remove any priesthood or authority you supposedly had.

As for the church, we’ve had our chats. Based upon all evidence we’ve discussed I’m still unable to understand your pretzel making skills on the subject. I don’t reply for you anymore, just when I want to make a point or get my thoughts in the air for others to see (or pure entertainment, which is the choice as of late). As much as I wish I could trust you to have genuine interactions on this forum, you’ve proven that it’s incredibly difficult. Why? Well, you lied about not creating multiple aliases posting with different personalities (not that I believed for a second that Logan, Matthias, and Atticus weren’t the same person). After repeatedly denying these connections you’ve now chosen a new alias that encompasses the others, but that doesn’t change the past. I mention this because you like to refer to personal attacks… and this section of my post is indeed personal. But I think the intent and genuineness of a person is incredibly important when having these types of discussions. Because of this history and the obvious mental games that you love to play, it’s impossible for me to continue discussing with you as if I’m talking with a real human being. I think the only way I could be swayed to see you and your arguments in any other way would be to sit down face-to-face, which likely will never happen. Until then there’s no reason for me to trust you or to value your interpretations.

I’m done replying for the time being, the games have been fun.

So the standard personal attack on the way out in order to try and save face bit. Same old same old. I do find it interesting that you accuse me of being insincere in our discussions, while openly admitting that you've just been playing games the whole time. But I digress.

As for the rest, you have no idea why I have had several different accounts. It's definitely not out of a lack of sincerity. It mostly has to do with the double standards for how this forum is run. But out of respect for the creator of this forum, that's all I'll say.

And as for authority, it's not men who dictate that, it is God. And he could not have been more clear when he said:

11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

D&C 42:11

[Luke]

And as for authority, it's not men who dictate that, it is God. And he could not have been more clear when he said:

11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

D&C 42:11

Within the Church and it’s recognition, yes, obviously. But you can’t claim it’s a catch-all statement, otherwise God wouldn’t have spoken of “holy men which ye know not of”.