Historical RMN vs. modern RMN

[Seed Starter]

Real Love May Compel Courageous Confrontation

Small detail: I don't see any modern leaders suffering unto death.

Compare and contrast the video with Good and Global's post:
viewtopic.php?t=71869

Modern RMN:
From their examples, President Nelson said he has learned six ways to disagree:
“Express feelings with love. (From the historical RMN) "Real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation, not acquiescence"
“Don’t think you know best.
“Don’t compete.
“Don’t rigorously defend your position.
“Let the Spirit guide your conversations.
“Be filled with charity, the pure love of Christ.”

Oh and by the way, “Charity is the antidote to contention. It is the principal characteristic of a true follower of Jesus Christ. Charity defines a peacemaker.” I didn't hear him use the word charity in the video.

Courageous confrontation, not acquiescence is the opposite of the bending to the natural man we see in the RMN led church today.

"Real love does not support self-destructing behavior." Oh really? Then what the hell is this:

https://thecougarchronicle.com/founder- ... onference/

We all change and grow but on these issues it seems like RMN has moved away from truth as the years went on. I can't believe this man is a skull and bonesman and also the corporate sole of the MORMON church. If what RMN says is true and we love Christ and His gospel we should be confronting church leadership when they sin so that we can unsure the church follows Christ. If we see self destructing (to the church) behavior this man should support us showing love for Christ and the sinner (Him). When the church is going to hell in a hand basket (SEC lies and law breaking, LGBTQ issues, pride (all is well in zion), working with secret combinations) we should be firm and not show acquiescence right? RIGHT RMN?

If disciples of the Lord were firm and were willing to suffer death vs. sin or follow sinners then perhaps my family should understand why I'm not willing to let the destruction I see just continue without complaint. The irony is this man is responsible for many current church issues.

[Teancum1]

The irony in this clip is palpable. And while reading the comments I find it funny that no one commenting can see that we have clearly acquiesced to the world in so many ways.

Just like the LDS readers of the Book of Mormon never understand that it’s message describes us - current church members who are full of pride and arrogance.

[Subcomandante]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

[Seed Starter]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

So it seems the modern church is more about PC PR than it is about following Abinadi's example. I agree on the de-banking thing. The church is very good at positioning itself in the world. It makes me a bit sad that these men seem much less willing to take one for the team in any way. The Savior allowed all manner of slights, insults, and even torture to death against him and yet these men seem fearful of looking hateful or even out of touch with the world.

[InfoWarrior82]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

If they are fearful about the money in their bank, this shows that they do not have faith in God.

D&C 121 43-69 truly is about our current church leaders.

[TheDuke]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

So it seems the modern church is more about PC PR than it is about following Abinadi's example. I agree on the de-banking thing. The church is very good at positioning itself in the world. It makes me a bit sad that these men seem much less willing to take one for the team in any way. The Savior allowed all manner of slights, insults, and even torture to death against him and yet these men seem fearful of looking hateful or even out of touch with the world.

I would like to fully disagree on every point and argue it, BUT, I see that wouldn't be Christlike so I guess I must just accept all sides are correct and decline any comment in a loving and compassionate way. I hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings posting this. BTW all is well in Zion!

[SempiternalHarbinger]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

Speaking of bank cancellations, this just happened to Dr. Mercola.
https://twitter.com/mercola/status/1688555207519531008

The social credit system scheme to topple Mercola.

Last month, JP Morgan Chase Bank canceled all my business bank accounts, along with the personal accounts of our CEO, CFO and their respective spouses and children.

Over the past three-plus years, countless people and organizations have been cut off from online payment services and banking services for their views alone. What makes our current case unique is that Chase is expanding the punishment to key employees of my business and their families — people who literally have nothing do to with me.

What we’re seeing is the weaponization of finance, where people whose views or actions go against the official narrative are cut off from basic financial services. This is the social credit system at work and, soon, it will be used against everyone.

The debanking of employees and their families is a social credit system tactic to make people start policing each other by punishing associations. This creates discord and distrust, and forces people to turn on each other for self-preservation.

What is certain is that Chase Bank is not acting on some high ethical or moral ground. In addition to ignoring evidence of money laundering by the Biden family, Chase Bank and Dimon himself also had a decade-long close working relationship with the notorious pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (see email below).

[Good & Global]

Very good points!

I don't see any modern leaders suffering unto death

True. This was when they were using the examples of the Apostles in the New Testament.
They have turned and fled from their convictions. They are now empty sepulchres of authority.
Having the form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

Courageous confrontation, not acquiescence
Again holding to the Lord's standard of truth. This has given way which shows they do not talk to God.

If disciples of the Lord were firm ... Not willing to let the destruction I see just continue without complaint

This is the part that most members miss is they have faith in an organization not Christ. They can't see it.
They have been coddled into carnal security that they do not need to do anything on their own. They have their creature comforts. Their leaders will tell them when it's time. Contention is of the devil. See how tricky he is: Carnal Security is less than Contention. And thus the Devil cheated their souls from the Glory of Christ they could be working towards today.

The irony is this man is responsible for many current church issues

As long as he briefly mentions the word Christ - mormon brains are programmed to think everything is the same.
Thus the temperature knob on the stove has been increased and the faithful frogs think everything is fine.

[Subcomandante]

Very good points!

I don't see any modern leaders suffering unto death
True. This was when they were using the examples of the Apostles in the New Testament.
They have turned and fled from their conviction. They are now empty sepulchres of authority.

Courageous confrontation, not acquiescence
Again holding to a standard of truth

If disciples of the Lord were firm ... Not willing to let the destruction I see just continue without complaint
This is the part that most members miss is they have faith in an organization not Christ. They can't see it.
They have been coddled into carnal security that they do not need to do anything on their own.
Their leaders will tell them when it's time.
And thus the Devil cheated their souls from the Glory of Christ they could be working towards today.

The irony is this man is responsible for many current church issues
As long as he briefly mentions the word Christ - mormon brains are programmed to think everything is the same.
Thus the temperature knob on the stove has been increased and the faithful frogs think everything is fine.

Another point of contention about the cause of the changes of RMN, have been his original wife Dantzel and his second wife Wendy.

[Good & Global]

Another point of contention about the cause of the changes of RMN, have been his original wife Dantzel and his second wife Wendy.

I never thought of that but yes his new wife Wendy and her comments when he assumed the role of president of the church were out of place. Inappropriate and shocking if it was really to become true. She described him as being "unleashed" Being able to do the things he couldn't in the past.

My immediate thought was why is the quiet reverence a prophet should have towards the Lord's work being referred to as unleashed? I mean isn't this his work? Why does the previous preferences of a prophet have anything to do with what the Lord currently wants him to do? This is what ran through my mind at the time.

I mean isn't the world "unleashed" reserved for causing serious damage? Violent, sudden, implusive damage? Almost in a fit of chaos and rage? Why is this being used for Russell M. Nelson?

Underlying all this the most common usage when we hear unleashed is demons seem to accompany its usage in a biblical sense, meaning they are let loose to be able to do what they will one last time and bring the destruction that awaits those who do not hear the true voice of the Lord and follow him alone.

[Subcomandante]

Another point of contention about the cause of the changes of RMN, have been his original wife Dantzel and his second wife Wendy.

I never thought of that but yes his new wife Wendy and her comments when he assumed the role of president of the church were out of place. Inappropriate and shocking if it was really to become true. She described him as being "unleashed" Being able to do the things he couldn't in the past.

My immediate thought was why is the quiet reverence a prophet should have towards the Lord's work being referred to as unleashed? I mean isn't this his work? Why does the previous preferences of a prophet have anything to do with what the Lord currently wants him to do? This is what ran through my mind at the time.

I mean isn't the world "unleashed" reserved for causing serious damage? Violent, sudden, implusive damage? Almost in a fit of chaos and rage? Why is this being used for Russell M. Nelson?

Underlying all this the most common usage when we hear unleashed is demons seem to accompany its usage in a biblical sense, meaning they are let loose to be able to do what they will one last time and bring the destruction that awaits those who do not hear the true voice of the Lord and follow him alone.

Dantzel was still alive when I became a member of the Church. She passed a couple of years thereafter. Apparently when Russell was starting his medical duties, she was still a schoolteacher but she stayed at home afterwards, raising ten children.

Wendy was a family therapist for many years, and was single for a long time, before marrying Russell about a year and a half after Dantzel's passing.

We read oftentimes in the Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, about how a woman can greatly influence a man for good or for evil. We also see it in the Book of Mormon with the queen of the Lamanites, wife of Lamoni's father. Perhaps the most destructive example of evil was Jezebel.

Now I am not saying that Wendy is Jezebel, or that Dantzel was Sarah, but there is a VAST difference between Dantzel's approach and Wendy's approach.

Wendy's approach, behind Russell's recent words not to rigourously contend for a position, might be posited in these words that Wendy spoke to the UVU graduates a couple of years ago:

“When one person believes that he or she is more correct than another and that they must change, that leads to emotional violence, ...We can have ideas that are different from each other. That’s just part of life.”

So...we shouldn't engage in missionary work then because it is "emotional violence" to tell people they need to repent, which means to make changes to their lives? Nobody likes to admit they are wrong.

Sure, we can have different ideas, and navigating through life is navigating through those different ideas.

However, if we want the hard truth, there is only ONE way back to God and that is through Jesus Christ. Any other idea, no matter how good on the surface, if it doesn't point back to Jesus, or even to one of His messengers that quotes Him directly as he says the idea, will ultimately fall short of the mark. Some might fall past the mark, while we need to be on the mark.

Emotional violence be d____d. I can imagine a lot of "emotional violence" will be had at the judgment seat.

[Seed Starter]

Another point of contention about the cause of the changes of RMN, have been his original wife Dantzel and his second wife Wendy.

I never thought of that but yes his new wife Wendy and her comments when he assumed the role of president of the church were out of place. Inappropriate and shocking if it was really to become true. She described him as being "unleashed" Being able to do the things he couldn't in the past.

My immediate thought was why is the quiet reverence a prophet should have towards the Lord's work being referred to as unleashed? I mean isn't this his work? Why does the previous preferences of a prophet have anything to do with what the Lord currently wants him to do? This is what ran through my mind at the time.

I mean isn't the world "unleashed" reserved for causing serious damage? Violent, sudden, implusive damage? Almost in a fit of chaos and rage? Why is this being used for Russell M. Nelson?

Underlying all this the most common usage when we hear unleashed is demons seem to accompany its usage in a biblical sense, meaning they are let loose to be able to do what they will one last time and bring the destruction that awaits those who do not hear the true voice of the Lord and follow him alone.

Dantzel was still alive when I became a member of the Church. She passed a couple of years thereafter. Apparently when Russell was starting his medical duties, she was still a schoolteacher but she stayed at home afterwards, raising ten children.

Wendy was a family therapist for many years, and was single for a long time, before marrying Russell about a year and a half after Dantzel's passing.

We read oftentimes in the Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, about how a woman can greatly influence a man for good or for evil. We also see it in the Book of Mormon with the queen of the Lamanites, wife of Lamoni's father. Perhaps the most destructive example of evil was Jezebel.

Now I am not saying that Wendy is Jezebel, or that Dantzel was Sarah, but there is a VAST difference between Dantzel's approach and Wendy's approach.

Wendy's approach, behind Russell's recent words not to rigourously contend for a position, might be posited in these words that Wendy spoke to the UVU graduates a couple of years ago:

“When one person believes that he or she is more correct than another and that they must change, that leads to emotional violence, ...We can have ideas that are different from each other. That’s just part of life.”

So...we shouldn't engage in missionary work then because it is "emotional violence" to tell people they need to repent, which means to make changes to their lives? Nobody likes to admit they are wrong.

Sure, we can have different ideas, and navigating through life is navigating through those different ideas.

However, if we want the hard truth, there is only ONE way back to God and that is through Jesus Christ. Any other idea, no matter how good on the surface, if it doesn't point back to Jesus, or even to one of His messengers that quotes Him directly as he says the idea, will ultimately fall short of the mark. Some might fall past the mark, while we need to be on the mark.

Emotional violence be d____d. I can imagine a lot of "emotional violence" will be had at the judgment seat.

Great insight Sub! I can certainly see the influence Wendy may have had on him. The prophet's softening (weakening) tone is on full display when I contrast RMN's words then and now. Knowing his wife thinks this way helps me make sense of things. Ho many of his pushes were influenced by her I wonder. Wendy to Beverly Campbell, " hold my plate of funeral potatoes...

[Seed Starter]

Another point of contention about the cause of the changes of RMN, have been his original wife Dantzel and his second wife Wendy.

I never thought of that but yes his new wife Wendy and her comments when he assumed the role of president of the church were out of place. Inappropriate and shocking if it was really to become true. She described him as being "unleashed" Being able to do the things he couldn't in the past.

My immediate thought was why is the quiet reverence a prophet should have towards the Lord's work being referred to as unleashed? I mean isn't this his work? Why does the previous preferences of a prophet have anything to do with what the Lord currently wants him to do? This is what ran through my mind at the time.

I mean isn't the world "unleashed" reserved for causing serious damage? Violent, sudden, implusive damage? Almost in a fit of chaos and rage? Why is this being used for Russell M. Nelson?

Underlying all this the most common usage when we hear unleashed is demons seem to accompany its usage in a biblical sense, meaning they are let loose to be able to do what they will one last time and bring the destruction that awaits those who do not hear the true voice of the Lord and follow him alone.

Like a dog on a chain RMN was "UNLEASHED" the moment he became a corporate sole. DAB prefers the flood metaphor over the leash metaphor Who had a leash on RMN? Using the word unleashed is very strange in this situation. The ring of power does things to people. That seems like a very enterprising comment from Wendy.

[Good & Global]

Sure, we can have different ideas, and navigating through life is navigating through those different ideas.

However, if we want the hard truth, there is only ONE way back to God and that is through Jesus Christ.

This is where I would put a full stop. Any messenger is of minor importance compared to the person who has the power to save us. Do we esteem AT&T to be of the same importance as a parent simply because they relayed their words to us on their network? I doubt we would.

So why should it be any different with Christ? This keeps the proper relationship and focus on Christ. Otherwise, we get into this circular referencing the brethren do and skimming importance off the top that should be reserved for our risen Lord and King. Sometimes the servants like to play like they are the king but they are not. When rusty can see himself through his resurrection on his own then we will talk prophet worship. Until then I choose to put mortals on a lower plane than our God who rightfully deserves his own worship.

[Ymarsakar]

Real Love May Compel Courageous Confrontation

Small detail: I don't see any modern leaders suffering unto death.

Compare and contrast the video with Good and Global's post:
viewtopic.php?t=71869

Modern RMN:
From their examples, President Nelson said he has learned six ways to disagree:
“Express feelings with love. (From the historical RMN) "Real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation, not acquiescence"
“Don’t think you know best.
“Don’t compete.
“Don’t rigorously defend your position.
“Let the Spirit guide your conversations.
“Be filled with charity, the pure love of Christ.”

Oh and by the way, “Charity is the antidote to contention. It is the principal characteristic of a true follower of Jesus Christ. Charity defines a peacemaker.” I didn't hear him use the word charity in the video.

Courageous confrontation, not acquiescence is the opposite of the bending to the natural man we see in the RMN led church today.

"Real love does not support self-destructing behavior." Oh really? Then what the hell is this:

https://thecougarchronicle.com/founder- ... onference/

We all change and grow but on these issues it seems like RMN has moved away from truth as the years went on. I can't believe this man is a skull and bonesman and also the corporate sole of the MORMON church. If what RMN says is true and we love Christ and His gospel we should be confronting church leadership when they sin so that we can unsure the church follows Christ. If we see self destructing (to the church) behavior this man should support us showing love for Christ and the sinner (Him). When the church is going to hell in a hand basket (SEC lies and law breaking, LGBTQ issues, pride (all is well in zion), working with secret combinations) we should be firm and not show acquiescence right? RIGHT RMN?

If disciples of the Lord were firm and were willing to suffer death vs. sin or follow sinners then perhaps my family should understand why I'm not willing to let the destruction I see just continue without complaint. The irony is this man is responsible for many current church issues.

praise skull and bones I guess

[Ymarsakar]

"So why should it be any different with Christ? This keeps the proper relationship and focus on Christ. Otherwise, we get into this circular referencing the brethren do and skimming importance off the top that should be reserved for our risen Lord and King. Sometimes the servants like to play like they are the king but they are not. "

Is this why 90-95% of your posts are about bad LDS and Nelson instead of JC?

Proper focus on JC neh.

"Until then I choose to put mortals on a lower plane than our God who rightfully deserves his own worship."

Waiting on the LDS preachers here to call you out on not being mortal. 1
2

3

[Erastothenes]

RMN is only on this "kind disagreement," kick because he knows that he has no leadership abilities and has no idea what he is doing. So rather than have members feel as though they can complain and argue against his narcissistic incompetence he is trying to persuade them to sit back, be nice to him and not make a fuss.

[Ymarsakar]

RMN is only on this "kind disagreement," kick because he knows that he has no leadership abilities and has no idea what he is doing. So rather than have members feel as though they can complain and argue against his narcissistic incompetence he is trying to persuade them to sit back, be nice to him and not make a fuss.

He and Brandon are having a contest.

[Ymarsakar]

If we see self destructing (to the church) behavior this man should support us showing love for Christ and the sinner (Him). When the church is going to hell in a hand basket (SEC lies and law breaking, LGBTQ issues, pride (all is well in zion), working with secret combinations) we should be firm and not show acquiescence right? RIGHT RMN?

If disciples of the Lord were firm and were willing to suffer death vs. sin or follow sinners then perhaps my family should understand why I'm not willing to let the destruction I see just continue without complaint. The irony is this man is responsible for many current church issues.

No no no.

I think people already know what to do on this forum.

They should be firm and criticize OUR and Tim Ballard and Angel studios. That's the ticket to celestial kingdom.

Being afraid of criticizing your churchianity and bishops make perfect sense. You must Obey. Or else end up like Qshaman and Utah peeps investigated by FBI, Donald, etc.

Don't be foolish like Grusch!

Utah Mormonism shows love and support by believing in CIAnon psyops about SOund of Freedom funding. That is showing firmness.

They should obey the red seats, who have not braved death as OUR/Ballard has, but not adhere to what Ballard says. In this fashion, they can learn to challenge the red seats. In another 26k years, they will gather the courage to do so.

They should acquiescence to Lynn Packer, Utah Mormonism, and CIAnons from Utah Mormonism. This is the way to disobey the Packer bloodline. By adhering to what Packer tells them.

Satans will throw down satans. Jeshua cast out satan using the power of the devil. CIAnons created a movement exposing the child pedos they are protecting, because they are casting themselves out.

[Serragon]

I appreciate this contrast. Thank you very much!

In the old days, Nelson defined "Real Love" in the context of the first great commandment. Now he defines it as the world defines it.

Previously, we showed love by helping bring people to repentance. Now, by accepting sin. The former brings eternal salvation through opposition to the world and the natural man. The latter brings spiritual death through aquiescence and acceptance of sin and abomination.

Following the world is always the easy and lazy way, but does seem to get you some measure of worldly praise and reward. Most of the prophets in the scriptures would fail Nelson's current definition of "Real Love" miserably.

[BigFootCain]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

Overall this thread has been a great read. My wife and I have talked about Wendy's probable influence over RMN. But I wanted to veer on a different track and just mention something that has been bothering me for some time now. Which Sub touched on in his comment.

I've heard the phrase that "good information leads to good revelation" so often now that it drives me nuts. While I believe it is true to an extent, I think it has been overused as a crutch for leaders to lean on the arm of the flesh and not rely on the Spirit. In fact, whenever I see the acronym PSR anymore I often think of it as referring to "Pfocus groups, Surveys, and Reports". I feel that data is what drives so many of the decisions of Church leaders. And while data has it's place and should be used, it shouldn't get in the way of revelation through the Holy Ghost.

Side note - I do realize that in order to make the acronym work I had to play off of the phonetic sound of Pf, but if our dear friends at Pfizer can do it then I thought I would as well.

[Ymarsakar]

I've heard the phrase that "good information leads to good revelation" so often now that it drives me nuts. While I believe it is true to an extent, I think it has been overused as a crutch for leaders to lean on the arm of the flesh and not rely on the Spirit. In fact, whenever I see the acronym PSR anymore I often think of it as referring to "Pfocus groups, Surveys, and Reports". I feel that data is what drives so many of the decisions of Church leaders. And while data has it's place and should be used, it shouldn't get in the way of revelation through the Holy Ghost.

Side note - I do realize that in order to make the acronym work I had to play off of the phonetic sound of Pf, but if our dear friends at Pfizer can do it then I thought I would as well.

Almost none of my revelations came about because of information I was reading or gathering. Most of it came out of the blue and I had trouble contextualizing what it even meant. There was no logickal frame of reference or A causes B thinking that is normally had when self inspecting my thoughts.

[Subcomandante]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

Overall this thread has been a great read. My wife and I have talked about Wendy's probable influence over RMN. But I wanted to veer on a different track and just mention something that has been bothering me for some time now. Which Sub touched on in his comment.

I've heard the phrase that "good information leads to good revelation" so often now that it drives me nuts. While I believe it is true to an extent, I think it has been overused as a crutch for leaders to lean on the arm of the flesh and not rely on the Spirit. In fact, whenever I see the acronym PSR anymore I often think of it as referring to "Pfocus groups, Surveys, and Reports". I feel that data is what drives so many of the decisions of Church leaders. And while data has it's place and should be used, it shouldn't get in the way of revelation through the Holy Ghost.

Side note - I do realize that in order to make the acronym work I had to play off of the phonetic sound of Pf, but if our dear friends at Pfizer can do it then I thought I would as well.

The quote is "good inspiration is based on good information" and it was said by Nelson in one of his first Conference talks as President of the Church. Yet, I will let it fly because oftentimes many Church members confuse "inspiration" with "revelation." One can be "inspired" to do something based on watching others with their experiences. But it wouldn't necessarily come from revelation, which needs to come from above and not beside you. You are absolutely correct that relying more on "inspiration" more so than "revelation" has put the Church into the spot it is now. In order to please everybody at once, it has painted itself into a corner.

No problems with the PF sound; it is essentially the same as the F sound in German. Pfeffer (pepper), Pfingston (Pentecost) and Pferd (horse) all have this sound.

[Good & Global]

The quote is "good inspiration is based on good information" and it was said by Nelson in one of his first Conference talks as President of the Church. Yet, I will let it fly because oftentimes many Church members confuse "inspiration" with "revelation." One can be "inspired" to do something based on watching others with their experiences. But it wouldn't necessarily come from revelation, which needs to come from above and not beside you. You are absolutely correct that relying more on "inspiration" more so than "revelation" has put the Church into the spot it is now. In order to please everybody at once, it has painted itself into a corner.

I would also like to add information from a separate post as it may have bearing here.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... h-birthday

President Henry B. Eyring, Second Counselor, expressed his thoughts about President Nelson’s role as the Lord’s prophet. “Every time we walk out of the office, President Oaks and I say, ‘It happened again.’ You’ll just see revelation come. You’ll see him ask for counsel, and then the decision will come and everybody in the room knows it is right and from God. He just quietly says, ‘I think this is what the Lord would want us to do.’ It’s just time after time.”

This is where inspiration is being mistaken as revelation. Because let's be clear there has been absolutely no revelation under Rusty. He gave clear direction on Mormon being a victory for Satan but even that was not a revelation. There was no clear divine provenance associated with this mantra. No authorship of the Lord only it came from a man whose title assumes he speaks to/for God. Maybe they have not had real revelation for so long they mistake inspiration, something we can all receive, as the real thing.

Granted, these men who carry an apostle title and allude to seeing/speaking with the Lord should absolutely know the difference but I will leave it at that for this illustration.

[Libertas Est Salus]

I find this to be VERY ironic indeed.

I am not sure when it started to happen, but the Apostles seem to be briefed by different groups of people who also have callings in the Church.

There was the Area Seventy that also was high on Pfizer's totem pole. The former Seventy, now Apostle, who was a CFR member. Other people connected with the banking industry and the pharmaceutical industry, amongst other industries.

It is said that good inspiration can be based on good information. This information must be weighed against already revealed truth in the Scriptures, PLUS truth that is revealed from on high, whether it go with the counsel or not.

It seems that today's Apostles are briefed more on these world events, and respond to those world events in a way that will seek to piss off the entire world in general less, when they should be going to God to receive confirmation that the events spoken of are true, or are really false flags going on.

The inspiration should be coming from God down to the Apostles. Not from the rank-and-file membership in high places up to the Apostles and then back down to the rank-and-file membership in low places. The bureaucracy would be outgaining the Apostles and that should NOT be the case.

The first talk definitely looks like it could have been God-inspired. Telling people that there might need to be a courageous confrontation with another person if necessary, so that the person doesn't even participate in the sin. Now these days we are told not to rigorously defend our position, or even to show a hint of contention. This strikes more of someone who is fearful than someone who has faith.

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this generalized fear, is if the Church's bank accounts might be in danger if they were to say something similar to the discourses of 30 or 40 years ago. Bank cancellation is a thing now these days; one only need ask Nigel Farage about that in the UK. But this is NO excuse.

Overall this thread has been a great read. My wife and I have talked about Wendy's probable influence over RMN. But I wanted to veer on a different track and just mention something that has been bothering me for some time now. Which Sub touched on in his comment.

I've heard the phrase that "good information leads to good revelation" so often now that it drives me nuts. While I believe it is true to an extent, I think it has been overused as a crutch for leaders to lean on the arm of the flesh and not rely on the Spirit. In fact, whenever I see the acronym PSR anymore I often think of it as referring to "Pfocus groups, Surveys, and Reports". I feel that data is what drives so many of the decisions of Church leaders. And while data has it's place and should be used, it shouldn't get in the way of revelation through the Holy Ghost.

Side note - I do realize that in order to make the acronym work I had to play off of the phonetic sound of Pf, but if our dear friends at Pfizer can do it then I thought I would as well.

The quote is "good inspiration is based on good information" and it was said by Nelson in one of his first Conference talks as President of the Church. Yet, I will let it fly because oftentimes many Church members confuse "inspiration" with "revelation." One can be "inspired" to do something based on watching others with their experiences. But it wouldn't necessarily come from revelation, which needs to come from above and not beside you. You are absolutely correct that relying more on "inspiration" more so than "revelation" has put the Church into the spot it is now. In order to please everybody at once, it has painted itself into a corner.

No problems with the PF sound; it is essentially the same as the F sound in German. Pfeffer (pepper), Pfingston (Pentecost) and Pferd (horse) all have this sound.

You seem to be hitting a lot of home runs lately, brother. Great thoughts! I love it.