Does the Church Use Paid Persons to Monitor Our Discussions?

[ATL Wakecaptain of 1,000]

Let me guess...those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't (really) know.

With all your new found knowledge, has it happened to you or are you no different than anyone else- ie the so called 99% of LDS's?

Mocking sacred things tends not to lead to disclosure.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

That 1% miracle number is EXTREMELY low. I'd put it closer to 80+%.

To clarify, the less than 1% applies to seeing Christ in the flesh, not miracles in general.

I am left to wonder then what percent truly, truly desire this enough to accept His invitation.

Probably not very many people understand what it actually means.

A related question - why are the GAs telling the member to seek doctors' care before priesthood healings?

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Let me guess...those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't (really) know.

With all your new found knowledge, has it happened to you or are you no different than anyone else- ie the so called 99% of LDS's?

Mocking sacred things tends not to lead to disclosure.

That wasn't meant to mock. Reese is one of the many here who criticizes her fellow LDS's for not believing and not seeking after Christ and not having these "miracles", so I just wondered if her experiences are any different than those she criticises. Obviously she feels if people have them they should share them, otherwise she wouldn't have posted what she did.
And just to be clear, I've had a few minutes to remember many experiences normal active LDS's HAVE shared, and they are MANY!

[ATL Wakecaptain of 1,000]

A related question - why are the GAs telling the member to seek doctors' care before priesthood healings?

My guess is that there are so few who have power in the priesthood.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

I've had a few minutes to remember many experiences normal active LDS's HAVE shared, and they are MANY!

I've heard many tales, but even since I was a young lad I never really got to experience much of that. Going to church was the absolute lowest point of my weeks and I was always excluded at every possible level. I prayed and prayed for an escape or even some minor relief but was always ignored. It wasn't until I concluded that if God didn't care if I was happy then I should follow his example and stop caring myself that things actually became bearable.

[AshleyBcaptain of 1,000]

A related question - why are the GAs telling the member to seek doctors' care before priesthood healings?

My guess is that there are so few who have power in the priesthood.

Also perhaps because few have enough faith in healing. We are told it is a gift of the spirit to have faith to be healed. This is an area I am probably most weak in my faith unfortunately. But, thats why I just keep asking the Lord to be patient with me and to please " Help thou my unbelief. "

[buffalo_girlcaptain of 1,000]

I've heard many tales, but even since I was a young lad I never really got to experience much of that. Going to church was the absolute lowest point of my weeks and I was always excluded at every possible level. I prayed and prayed for an escape or even some minor relief but was always ignored. It wasn't until I concluded that if God didn't care if I was happy then I should follow his example and stop caring myself that things actually became bearable.

You continue to 'endure' despite the fact that you question why 'good' members of the Church are a far cry from being Christ-like. So your faith in the Lord is strong. Have compassion on those who ignore you. They are NOT living up to what Christ expects of them.

You KNOW Christ does not ignore you because when you made the decision to 'follow his example' - choosing to forget about yourself - you felt relief. I have no doubt you will move beyond 'bearable' into 'happiness' if you find ways to help others. Do you have a calling in the Church? If not, ask for one. Pray for opportunities to help someone in need.

I have the feeling you are greatly loved by the Savior. Trust Him.

I have gone through periods of my life when everything was going along fine, EXCEPT I was depressed - over what I could not figure. I can recall several times when I knelt in prayer telling Heavenly Father I was depressed, didn't know why, and didn't know what to do about it. Within 24 hours of each of those prayers someone called me, came to my door, or crossed my path who needed my help in some way only I was able to provide for them at that particular moment in time. The depression disappeared!

As for going to doctors before Priesthood Blessings? I can't recall hearing that. Seems strange, if so.

I did have an odd experience while living in Utah when our youngest child stopped breathing and could not be revived. When I rushed across the road to our nearest neighbor - a High Priest in his 70's - with my lifeless baby in my arms to ask for a blessing, I was told he had never given one and didn't know how. I ran to the next nearest neighbor - another High Priest in his 70's - for a blessing on my child, he invited me in, called his grandson who was a local paramedic, and then layed his hands on our son's head and ordained him to the Priesthood. The baby revived and is now a young adult.

Regardless, I would ask for a Priesthood Blessing first. I don't trust doctors more than I trust the Lord.

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

Let me guess...those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't (really) know.

With all your new found knowledge, has it happened to you or are you no different than anyone else- ie the so called 99% of LDS's?
I have zero desire to share my sacred experiences with anyone but close family. Certainly not in fast and testimony meeting and definitely not here! So yeah, I think your statement is probably correct

No I have not seen an angel, so I am still in the 99%, however I have felt an angel. I am actively seeking to interact with one though. I know one person who has seen angels, I believe him. I have talked to a few here, over PM's that have seen angels. I believe them. I am of the opinion that these experiences should be shared. Not necessarily over this forum though.
I think that the biggest reason that we don't share these things is because we are not experiencing them. We use the "too sacred" as an excuse not to face the truth. Sharing experiences like this was common fare aomng the early saints. It was not too sacred to share, it was faith building and teaching. How is someone supose to learn how to experience these things if they are not being taught. You can always tell when someone has experienced these things, because they tell you exactly what you must do to experience it yourself. Yes I know all of the information is availible for those who seek it out, but how much better would it be if it were talked of and taught and shouted from the rooftops. I can't wait for the day that people will not have to say to each other "Do you know the Lord?" Becasue all will know him personally and will bare witness of it willingly.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

I would ask for a Priesthood Blessing first. I don't trust doctors more than I trust the Lord.

Amen! At times I've offered a blessing and then felt prompted to take my child to the hospital, but the blessing came first. One time my son was immediately healed as soon as I laid my hands on his head before a blessing was even pronounced. My daughter was healed with a priesthood blessing right after she was born without me even laying my hands on her head. A Dr. and two nurses were working on her (ultra emergency C-section) so there wasn't a chance of me getting in there to offer a "proper" blessing to the lifeless body. But hey, I'm just a regular "active" LDS member who also happens to be a bit immature so don't pay any attention to me!

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

I would ask for a Priesthood Blessing first. I don't trust doctors more than I trust the Lord.

Amen! At times I've offered a blessing and then felt prompted to take my child to the hospital, but the blessing came first. One time my son was immediately healed as soon as I laid my hands on his head before a blessing was even pronounced. My daughter was healed with a priesthood blessing right after she was born without me even laying my hands on her head. A Dr. and two nurses were working on her (ultra emergency C-section) so there wasn't a chance of me getting in there to offer a "proper" blessing to the lifeless body. But hey, I'm just a regular "active" LDS member who also happens to be a bit immature so don't pay any attention to me!

You know what shadow I want to apologize to you, and to anyone else this applies to. I know that these miracles are happening. They have happened to me, they have happened to my friends. I believe what you said here, that they have happened to you. And they are miracles. My lament, which can easily cross over the line into criticism, is that we are living far below our privilages. We settle for so much less than the Lord is willing to give us. But nevertheless, I do know that he still blesses each of us as much as we are willing to let him, and that these blessings are very real. And when we are ready he is waiting to receive each one of us with open arms, even if we do make it a harder path to travel than may be necessary. So I am sorry, there is much to commend in an "active" LDS member, even those of us who are immature as well.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

My lament, which can easily cross over the line into criticism, is that we are living far below our privilages. We settle for so much less than the Lord is willing to give us. But nevertheless, I do know that he still blesses each of us as much as we are willing to let him, and that these blessings are very real. And when we are ready he is waiting to receive each one of us with open arms, even if we do make it a harder path to travel than may be necessary. So I am sorry, there is much to commend in an "active" LDS member, even those of us who are immature as well.

I agree with you on this. I think the brethren talk about this every 6 months in GC, at least that's what I hear.
However hard we make it, it isn't the fault or problem of the church. The church is fulfilling it's role perfectly. What we do with or how far we take what we're taught is up to us individually.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

My lament, which can easily cross over the line into criticism, is that we are living far below our privilages. We settle for so much less than the Lord is willing to give us. But nevertheless, I do know that he still blesses each of us as much as we are willing to let him, and that these blessings are very real. And when we are ready he is waiting to receive each one of us with open arms, even if we do make it a harder path to travel than may be necessary. So I am sorry, there is much to commend in an "active" LDS member, even those of us who are immature as well.

I agree with you on this. I think the brethren talk about this every 6 months in GC, at least that's what I hear.
However hard we make it, it isn't the fault or problem of the church. The church is fulfilling it's role perfectly. What we do with or how far we take what we're taught is up to us individually.

Shadow, I miss you're car!

[MelissaMcaptain of 100]

This just says that we will see him in the flesh, not that we will receive a personal audience or interaction or even direct ministration. Having him manifest in the flesh could mean that he appears at Spring Hill and you get to sit 1/2 a mile away. Or perhaps appear at a General Conference (no, not joking) and you can watch the streaming video... or you see him standing in the clouds, or... or... or...

"All have access" means (to me) that you would be able to walk up and have a conversation. Since we are talking about physical, corporeal beings that means (again, to me) that you can get within, let's say, 1 meter. But there are too many people who would also want an audience and it just isn't physically possible to accomplish it like this.

At the miracle of the loaves and fishes everybody there was also said to have access, but there were probably a lot of people who were at the back of the crowd, unable to hear very well and feeling excluded. The crowds on the street probably had people who really wanted to get close but were too tired or weak or timid or shy or nervous or otherwise unable to get through the crowds.

The scripture you cited (2 Nephi 32:6) is referring to the meridian of time and not a personal promise anyway.

I completely disagree with you in regards to 2 Nephi 32:6. I believe that We need to have knowledge of Christ while in our flesh. Less than this is terrestial kingdom material. D&C 76. Yes, I believe that most of us are currently "hosed." I include myself among you. I have only recently awoken to my awful state.

Back to currently scheduled programming regarding who we should follow and who we shouldn't. I will leave it at this: D&C 76:98-101

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

[AussieOicaptain of 1,000]

mods- can we split this thread from about page 3 please

i'd really like to have the discussion on paid persons carried on

the other one is nice, but leave that for others to carry on

[Eddie Lylecaptain of 100]

I wish I was paid to read the forums. Maybe I can make a deal and get some coupons for City Creek ( which should still be renamed Little Stream like the primary song we sang over and over again. I love that song.).

[Etherial Bluecaptain of 10]

This discussion has been an interesting one to follow. Both of them actually, since this tread has morphed into at least two topics or more... but, getting back to the original discussion, I believe many of the issues being brought up in this thread parallel some of the fundamental underlying issues pertaining to the war in heaven which is being continued here in hell or, a I mean earth.

(having to do with oppression, force, authoritarianism, intimidation, kissing the Pope's a#* I mean ring vs. liberty, free speech and agency and taking the spirit as your guide, etc.).

It is really interesting to see people on one side of the debate always talking about finding safety in following the "brethren" and staying true to the "church" while the people on the other side of the debate speak of "following the Holy Ghost" and being true to the "gospel".

I would like to ask the folks on this forum a two primary questions:

1. "Is it possible to file a complaint against someone to the appropriate church authorities and request that a disciplinary church court be held to evaluate their standing in the church without being 'critical' of their actions or statements?"

Please think this question over really carefully cuz it is a trick question.

I personally don't think it is possible to bring someone into a church court without making a critical assessment of something they have done wrong.

Obviously we are to love the sinner but not embrace the sin that is committed. Nevertheless, we still hold those wonderful "courts of love" that result in destroying people's reputations, families and livelihoods... and for good reason.. usually.

I don't think that being critical is categorically bad.

Sometimes it is bad, but sometimes it is necessary and justified.

In fact, God requires the church membership to make judgments about people's actions and to take action in order to protect the church from being overcome with sin.

If someone brings something to the attention of the appropriate church authorities that they think is a serious offense that warrants a bishop's court or high council court, I would think that they are being critical, but they are only wrong in being critical if they are wrong about their accusation.

Here are some examples of sinful actions that might result in justified critical thoughts from members of the church:

A person gets drunk and smokes weed and gets high daily but enjoys having a temple recommend.

Does that warrant a critical judgment that could result in a complaint to church authorities?

A person commits adultery with his neighbor's wife.

Does that warrant a critical judgment that could result in a complaint to church authorities?

Are any of those complaints worthy of disciplinary action by a church court and if so, don't they require someone to observe them and make a critical judgment that results in a complaint to the church authorities?

I think they do..

And I think that there are times when the church needs to take action against those who are sinning.

In other words, if a lay member of the church or someone in authority thinks that someone in the church has made a serious enough mistake that a disciplinary church court should be held, they are making a critical observation.

Here is a text book example of how the Lord mandates criticism within the church:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out."

That commandment from the Lord contained in section 42 commands the church to make a critical but accurate judgment about a person's actions and if necessary, to "cast out" those who don't repent of adultery.

Does it not take criticism to observe that someone is committing adultery and then to cast the unrepentant adulterer out of the church for adultery?

Of course it does.

Here is another mandate from the Lord to look at fellow church members critically:

"And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him." (3rd Nephi 18: 28-29)

How can any member of the church follow the above mandate from the Lord in preventing people from partaking of the sacrament unworthily if it is a sin to be critical of others?

Is it only the people who are in leadership positions who are allowed to make critical judgments?

Obviously, church courts are conducted by those who are in certain leadership positions and ultimately it is those people that have the awesome and unenviable responsibility of passing disciplinary judgment on their fellow saints, but I would venture to guess that in most cases, the sin is brought to the attention of the leadership by a concerned member of the church who is not going to ultimately be sitting in judgment in the church court.

Do lay members of the church have the right and responsibility to make these critical observations when they see them?

Of course they do. That is what the Lord has commanded us to do.

Remember, the following passage in the New Testament?-

" JUDGE not, that ye be not judged."

It represents a corrupted passage of scripture.

It was corrected and restored to it's original statement in the JST

"Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment."

Next question. (this one is also a trick question of sorts)

Why did the Lord provide specific instructions on how to hold a church court for the President of the Church?

Was he being facetious or disingenuous when he gave us that protocol or was he being serious?

If it is really a cardinal sin to ever be critical of the Prophet of the Church and if we are to turn and look the other way and leave it up to the Lord to correct the situation whenever the president of the Church does something that is potentially harmful to the church or his own personal spiritual well being, WHY DID THE LORD GIVE US INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH CAN BE DISCIPLINED OR EXCOMMUNICATED?

I would suggest that it is because the Lord, in his infinite foreknowledge and wisdom knew that Presidents of the church are human beings that are subject to making serious mistakes just like everyone else.

I would suggest that He knew that there would (or at least could) be future circumstances when a president of the church might do something wrong for which he would need to be corrected, if not cut off.

Interestingly, there are people in this forum who seem to believe that it would be a mortal sin to ever be critical of the president of the church and other general authorities.

The very belief that nobody should ever be critical of the president of the church completely negates the Lords instructions on how to hold a church court on the president of the church.

If church members have no right or responsibility to make righteous judgments about how the church is being governed then it appears as if the Lord made a very serious error in providing a protocol for holding a disciplinary counsil concerning the conduct of the president of the church.

It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith was actually brought before a disciplinary court as a result of a complaint by a fellow saint stemming from issues that took place during Zions Camp.

The brother who filed the charges was named Sylvester Smith, one of the captains who served in the Zion's Camp expedition. The charges had to do with "criminal conduct" along with the fact that Sylvester felt that Joseph had used "insulting and abusive language" towards him.

One can only imagine what was going on in the minds of the council members who tried the case. Perhaps they were wondering what would ever happen to the church in the event that the Lord's prophet seer and revelator was ever excommunicated from the church.

The court ultimately rendered a verdict in favor of Joseph.

To the credit of Sylvester Smith, who was reprimanded as a result of the church council that he caused to be held, he did not leave the church because of that incident.

To the credit of Joseph Smith who was deeply humiliated in front of the entire church by the court proceedings and some of the testimony that was given by other witnesses that sided with Sylvester, he did not seek retribution of any kind.

Within a year after Sylvester brought charges against the Prophet, he was called to serve on the Kirtland High Council and shortly after that, he was called and ordained as one of the inaugural presidents of the Seventies which would indicate to me that neither Joseph Smith or the Lord harbored ill will against him for bringing the critical charges against the prophet.

There are obviously some disagreements between members of this forum as to whether there are serious problems within the church.

One thing is for sure, if there ever are serious problems with the leaders of this church, the problem can never be corrected based on the absurd notion that members of the church never have the right to ever be critical of church leaders and that only the leadership of the church have the right to be critical of their own sins.

The truth is that church leaders need to have the positive burden and tension of knowing that they are being watched by loving members who understand sound doctrine and want to accept their responsibility of participating in keeping the church on the right path.

I believe the Lord originally put two very important measures for a checks and balances between the leadership and the lay membership of this church. I believe those two measures are as follows:

1- He made members of the church responsible for bringing anyone, including church authorities into a church court anytime they commit a grievous sin.

2- He put in place the law of common consent giving the membership the right to reject new doctrines, commandments or church callings that is presented before the church

I believe both of those checks and balances have been negated by false teachings and perceptions currently held in the church.

Members have been brainwashed to believe that they can never be justified in bringing criticism against a general authority and they have been brain washed into believing that refusing to sustain the brethren in any doctrine, commandment or new leadership calling is categorically wrong and sinful.

If the church was running the way the Lord meant for it to run, someone would request that the Church look into the allegations and associated evidence that has been publicly provided regarding the use of paid employees to sway public opinion and to lie about who they actually represent.

After all, two separate witnesses who probably don't even know each other have obtained evidence and made allegations. One has actually provided compelling information which the church has made no attempt to refute or explain. (and you can be sure there are people in high places that know about the post that started this discussion.

"in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established"

If the allegations turn out to me wrong, everyone including the general authority over the strengthening the church members committee will feel much better after having the truth be brought to light and the authorities vindicated.

If in fact the allegations are true, an investigation needs to be held to see just how far up the chain of command the responsibility goes and the necessary disciplinary action needs to take place even if it goes all the way up to an Apostle or President. By that holy process given to us by the Lord we can correct the problem and move forward.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

I wish I was paid to read the forums. Maybe I can make a deal and get some coupons for City Creek ( which should still be renamed Little Stream like the primary song we sang over and over again. I love that song.).

I like City Creek!

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

As per the statement about seeking a doctor before asking for a blessing... I agree that you should give the blessing as well as get medical help.

One possible reason as to why medical care should be sought for is that there is a legal precedent for evangelical-type Christians who rely solely on faith healing...then child dies, and they are prosecuted (and convicted) by the state for child neglect & involuntary manslaughter...

The instruction may be simply to protect the parents...

[buffalo_girlcaptain of 1,000]

mods- can we split this thread from about page 3 please

i'd really like to have the discussion on paid persons carried on

the other one is nice, but leave that for others to carry on

Would you 'monitor our discussions' - even if you were paid?

I can't imagine anyone having the time or patience to do that for the Church or even the government, for that matter. There wouldn't be enough spare tithe or tax to pay someone to 'monitor our discussions', let alone find a 'sane' person to do it.

If there is IP evidence of someone generating propaganda for the Church on this - or other LDS blog sites - it's probably the same person who uses an exacto-knife to surgically remove all the 'nude' images from books in BYU's library. Same dithering mind set bent upon saving us from ourselves.

Sorry, Aussie, I'm not a mod anymore. I'ld do it if I could.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

The instruction may be simply to protect the parents...

The repeated context is that we are supposed to do everything we can before seeking God's healing power. The illustrations provided were along the lines of: member wonders why a priesthood blessing didn't bring about healing and the person was asked why they didn't see a doctor because God won't heal somebody unless they put forth some effort themselves. I found this very faith crushing but complied - when dealing with a problem I relied on the doctors first and the issue was resolved without getting God involved at all. A member of the stake presidency asked how things were going and when I said that per the instructions from the GAs I was doing all we could with modern medicine first and would ask God later to fix whatever they couldn't he nodded his approval and moved on.

Edit: some people have claimed that modern medical care IS God's healing power in action and so beating cancer into remission through surgery and chemotherapy is supposed to be interpreted as a miracle attributed to God.

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

Hi Etherial Blue. Nice post. Unfortunately I think we have strayed too far from the way things were done when the gospel was first restored, so nothing like this:

If the church was running the way the Lord meant for it to run, someone would request that the Church look into the allegations and associated evidence that has been publicly provided regarding the use of paid employees to sway public opinion and to lie about who they actually represent.

will take place.

[buffalo_girlcaptain of 1,000]

Edit: some people have claimed that modern medical care IS God's healing power in action and so beating cancer into remission through surgery and chemotherapy is supposed to be interpreted as a miracle attributed to God.mingano

I think you are talking to idiots. I don't care how up the organizational ladder they are.

There are nonpharmaceutical ways of approaching serious illness. If you are convinced you must see a doctor before receiving a blessing, find one who uses alternative approaches to diagnosis and treatment. Chemotherapy KILLS people along with their tumors.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

Hi Etherial Blue. Nice post. Unfortunately I think we have strayed too far from the way things were done when the gospel was first restored, so nothing like this:

If the church was running the way the Lord meant for it to run, someone would request that the Church look into the allegations and associated evidence that has been publicly provided regarding the use of paid employees to sway public opinion and to lie about who they actually represent.

will take place.

That would be steadying the ark, no?

What the brethren do is beyond reproach. God may correct them, we may not.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

It is really interesting to see people on one side of the debate always talking about finding safety in following the "brethren" and staying true to the "church" while the people on the other side of the debate speak of "following the Holy Ghost" and being true to the "gospel".

That isn't what the debate is about. For example, I claim to follow the the promptings of the HG and stay true to the gospel AND I claim there is safety in following the brethren and I stay true to the Lord's church. I make no distinction. You've created a false argument.

[Etherial Bluecaptain of 10]

"I make no distinction"

That is the point I was making... you can't see the distinction, those on the other side of the debate can.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

To me, the distinction is, that if you feel safe in always followng the brethren because the spirit has testified to you that doing so will always keep you safe, that is a different matter than feeling safe in always following the prophets and the brethren because a prophet said to.

I understand why you don't distinguish, Shadowman, because they are one and the same thing - or rather, I believe that the first is true for you, and therefore there is no distinction.

If I have a concern, it is that many are spiritually lazy and just follow by default - they essentially put their salvation in the hands of the brethren. Whether that really happens or is just a figment of my imagination - who knows? And I don't lose a lot of sleep over it, as it is outside of my stewardship? Am I my brothers keeper?

Oh wait - actually yes, I guess I am. Which is why I contionue to raise the concern - I am not making any accusation of anyone, but it does seem like a lot of time there is a lot of voice of warning of seeking spiritual guidance (because you can be deceived and led astray) and it is a valid warning. But I feel that the pitfall that we more often fall into is the spiritually complacent or lazy path of letting the brethren do the heavy lifting...and many of those that say "follow the brethren" actually don't if it is something they personally disagree with. As an example, the many past prophets who have said that aside from worshipping God that there is nothing that we should be more concerned with than understanding and upholding the Constitution - what bothers me is it SEEMS to me that those who just shrug their shoulders and pretty much ignore that are often the SAME individuals who chant the "follow the prophet" mantra. Or they take the ridiculous position that anything a past prophet has said is not relevant unless it has been repeated by the current prophet. etc.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

"I make no distinction"

That is the point I was making... you can't see the distinction, those on the other side of the debate can.

I can rephrase that if you'd like-

I haven't seen a reason to separate them. The church belongs to Jesus Christ. That is where He chose His gospel to be taught from. He called prophets and apostles etc. The Holy Ghost testifies of this.

Does that help?

[Etherial Bluecaptain of 10]

Not really.

BTW my original comment was made more in the spirit of observation, not condemnation. I don't fault anyone who decides to categorically (blindly) follow the brethren and support the church regardless of what is going on.

I believe both sides of the issue are correct, they are simply following differing gospel laws ( 88:21-24) and will simply end up in different glories.

It is all good. Everyone will end up where they need to end up.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Not really.

BTW my original comment was made more in the spirit of observation, not condemnation. I don't fault anyone who decides to categorically (blindly) follow the brethren and support the church regardless of what is going on.

I believe both sides of the issue are correct, they are simply following differing gospel laws ( 88:21-24) and will simply end up in different glories.

It is all good. Everyone will end up where they need to end up.

That's where you go off into la la land. You claim that following the prophet and finding safety in the Lord's church is somehow blindly following. You seem to claim that if a person follows the HG and the "gospel" they somehow will find themselves at odds with the "brethren" and the church. That's plain wrong. I find safety with the brethren and in the church BECAUSE the Holy Ghost has testified that the church is the Lord's, that the prophet is His mouthpiece. But even then, I don't "blindly" follow.

Again, your argument is false.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

I believe both sides of the issue are correct, they are simply following differing gospel laws ( 88:21-24) and will simply end up in different glories.

Which one gets the better deal in the end?

It is all good. Everyone will end up where they need to end up.

Calvin would approve.