What is apostasy?

[Thomas]

So, I take it your belief is that all is well in Zion? I think Snuffer tried to keep his covenants but since he would not say, all is well, he was booted.

That's not what Snuffer said and you know it.

Why would you assume my belief is that "all is well in Zion"?

What exactly did he say then? He published quotes from past presidents of the church.

It seems like we are not to acknowledge any faults among us.

You are free to express your belief, but your posts seem to indicate that is what your belief is.

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell

.

Personally, I am just trying to stay out of hell. It seems if I don't say all is well or say maybe we should do things a little different, I am invited to leave the church and find another.

[Army Of Truth]

If he does not believe that President Thomas Monson is a prophet or that we have continued revelation, I don't see why he would want to belong to our church since these are a few of our core beliefs if I'm not mistaken.

If someone can be exe'd for saying Thomas S. Monson isn't a prophet, it stands to reason no one should be admitted unless they state Thomas S. Monson is a prophet.

Is this a requirement to be part of "the church".

Or put another way, they'll be accepted/admitted in, so long as they eventually say he is a prophet.

Actually, it is a requirement. If you remember the 2nd question at a baptismal interview is:

"Do you believe that [the current Church President] is a prophet of God?

This also happens to be the 2nd question for a Temple recommend interview:

"Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?"

So either you believe in modern revelation and our current Prophet, or you don't. If you don't, then why should you become a member of our "church"? Maybe you should join another church that believes in Denver as their prophet?

Secondly, I never said he should be "exe'd for saying Thomas S. Monson isn't a prophet". There were obviously more reasons than this.

[Thomas]

If he does not believe that President Thomas Monson is a prophet or that we have continued revelation, I don't see why he would want to belong to our church since these are a few of our core beliefs if I'm not mistaken.

If someone can be exe'd for saying Thomas S. Monson isn't a prophet, it stands to reason no one should be admitted unless they state Thomas S. Monson is a prophet.

Is this a requirement to be part of "the church".

Or put another way, they'll be accepted/admitted in, so long as they eventually say he is a prophet.

Actually, it is a requirement. If you remember the 2nd question at a baptismal interview is:

"Do you believe that [the current Church President] is a prophet of God?

This also happens to be the 2nd question for a Temple recommend interview:

"Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?"

So either you believe in modern revelation and our current Prophet, or you don't. If you don't, then why should you become a member of our "church"? Maybe you should join another church that believes in Denver as their prophet?

Secondly, I never said he should be "exe'd for saying Thomas S. Monson isn't a prophet". There were obviously more reasons than this.

Do you believe all is well in Zion?

[Rick Grimes]

You creating a dilemma where there is none, Thomas. Nobody is claiming that"all is well" in Zion. Of course we still have alot of improvement that needs to be made as a church. I personally think that the Church does not talk about these deep principles as much anymore because the general membership is an ever expanding demographic that, as a whole, is mostly suitable for digesting "milk".

Heck, look at how divided we are in opinion about who the current prophet is! Look at how divided we are on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, plural marriage, gender roles, women holding priesthood, etc... Mention any of these in a Sunday school class and you will see the class divide into camps of beliefs. Could you imagine us discussing the Second Comforter, Blood Atonement, Calling and Election, Godhood, etc... in Sunday School class around the world? After word got out about all the "crazy stuff" that we are teaching, we'd either stifle the missionary work for several decades, at least or be asked to leave certain countries altogether! Our not discussing these sacred teachings in no way indicates that they have been repudiated or "changed", as Snuffer charges, it just shows a priority for the Church to focus on the one message that will do the most amount of good to the most amount of God's children. The first four principles and ordinances of the Gospel and temple attendance are the "milk" that will surely put Heavenly Father's children on the road to the CK.

Having a knowledge about Godhood or a Heavenly Mother is nice to know, but in the grand scheme of things, these will not insure your salvation.

To get back to the OP, once we stray from the basics (TSM is the prophet of God, baptism is essential for salvation) we are indeed on the road to apostasy, and unless we repent and come back to the fold, we must be "silenced" to protect the other sheep that may fall prey to the crafty wording that we might use to draw them away.

[rewcox]

You creating a dilemma where there is none, Thomas. Nobody is claiming that"all is well" in Zion. Of course we still have alot of improvement that needs to be made as a church. I personally think that the Church does not talk about these deep principles as much anymore because the general membership is an ever expanding demographic that, as a whole, is mostly suitable for digesting "milk".

Heck, look at how divided we are in opinion about who the current prophet is! Look at how divided we are on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, plural marriage, gender roles, women holding priesthood, etc... Mention any of these in a Sunday school class and you will see the class divide into camps of beliefs. Could you imagine us discussing the Second Comforter, Blood Atonement, Calling and Election, Godhood, etc... in Sunday School class around the world? After word got out about all the "crazy stuff" that we are teaching, we'd either stifle the missionary work for several decades, at least or be asked to leave certain countries altogether! Our not discussing these sacred teachings in no way indicates that they have been repudiated or "changed", as Snuffer charges, it just shows a priority for the Church to focus on the one message that will do the most amount of good to the most amount of God's children. The first four principles and ordinances of the Gospel and temple attendance are the "milk" that will surely put Heavenly Father's children on the road to the CK.

Having a knowledge about Godhood or a Heavenly Mother is nice to know, but in the grand scheme of things, these will not insure your salvation.

To get back to the OP, once we stray from the basics (TSM is the prophet of God, baptism is essential for salvation) we are indeed on the road to apostasy, and unless we repent and come back to the fold, we must be "silenced" to protect the other sheep that may fall prey to the crafty wording that we might use to draw them away.

I actually think the fullness of the Gospel is exciting and attractive. I think more people would be interested. It could create more of a dividing line between those who want the fullness and those that think it is crazy. Heck, there would probably be more miracles, would that be so bad?

Maybe those who are interested in the fullness can be directed to LDSFF, then both camps might be happy.

[Army Of Truth]

Do you believe all is well in Zion?

No I do not....sounds like you do...?

[Simon]

Do you believe all is well in Zion?

No I do not....sounds like you do...?

Well, in Zion all is well, for Zion are the pure in heart... The issue is rather that we believe to be Zion when we are not, for Zion has one great difference, Christ walks amongst them.

[ajax]

I have come to the following conclusions:

-A prophet isn't always a President
-A President isn't always a prophet
-God can call as many prophets as He wishes, from wherever, to deliver a message.
-There can only be one President of the Church.
-God appears to be ok with having multiple prophets at a the same time, both from within and without his accepted "structure"

So from the above framework:

-Denver Snuffer can be a prophet.
-Denver Snuffer cannot be the President of the Church. And nobody is suggesting he should be.
-Thomas Monson can be a prophet. But he is not a prophet just be virtue of being a President. When a new President is called, the church even encourages the membership to gain a testimony of his prophetic status.
-Thomas Monson is the President of the Church, sustained by the memebership as such. Nobody else has that right.

I don't think believing "others" can be prophets constitutes apostasy. Nor do I think someone who has not gained a testimony that the current President is a prophet constitutes apostasy, unless there is a hidden statute of limitations on such things.

[natasha]

You creating a dilemma where there is none, Thomas. Nobody is claiming that"all is well" in Zion. Of course we still have alot of improvement that needs to be made as a church. I personally think that the Church does not talk about these deep principles as much anymore because the general membership is an ever expanding demographic that, as a whole, is mostly suitable for digesting "milk".

Heck, look at how divided we are in opinion about who the current prophet is! Look at how divided we are on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, plural marriage, gender roles, women holding priesthood, etc... Mention any of these in a Sunday school class and you will see the class divide into camps of beliefs. Could you imagine us discussing the Second Comforter, Blood Atonement, Calling and Election, Godhood, etc... in Sunday School class around the world? After word got out about all the "crazy stuff" that we are teaching, we'd either stifle the missionary work for several decades, at least or be asked to leave certain countries altogether! Our not discussing these sacred teachings in no way indicates that they have been repudiated or "changed", as Snuffer charges, it just shows a priority for the Church to focus on the one message that will do the most amount of good to the most amount of God's children. The first four principles and ordinances of the Gospel and temple attendance are the "milk" that will surely put Heavenly Father's children on the road to the CK.

Having a knowledge about Godhood or a Heavenly Mother is nice to know, but in the grand scheme of things, these will not insure your salvation.

To get back to the OP, once we stray from the basics (TSM is the prophet of God, baptism is essential for salvation) we are indeed on the road to apostasy, and unless we repent and come back to the fold, we must be "silenced" to protect the other sheep that may fall prey to the crafty wording that we might use to draw them away.

Oh, wow, Rick! Thank you for this superb post. Most of the LDS people that I know would never say all is well in Zion. They repeatedly talk about the things we need to be doing as a people to draw closer to the Savior and to become more like him. It seems that many here think that because we aren't talking about the "deep things" (as they have been referenced) that we are saying all is well. Just not so! There is no doubt in mind that many of the people I know in my Ward are deeply concerned about how we need to be doing more to become a Zion people. If anyone has read the talk Elder Holland gave about 1 1/2 to 2 yrs. ago at a young adult fireside that was broadcast...he said that zion is no longer a place (noun)...that it is an adjective that needs to describe our homes, our Wards, our Stakes, etc. He also said that the Saints will never be asked to move again. So, we stay put and we work toward creating Zion. That indicates to me that we are definitely not there yet and we need to be concentrating on that. On a side note regarding Denver Snuffer. That is not our stewardship. None of us were there and none of us know for sure all that went on....also with the latest case with Brent. If we would expend as much energy on creating Zion as we do with some of these issues, we would be much better off. I dare say that most of us are not fluent and understanding enough in the basic principles of the gospel.

[Frederick]

If anyone has read the talk Elder Holland gave about 1 1/2 to 2 yrs. ago at a young adult fireside that was broadcast...he said that zion is no longer a place (noun)...that it is an adjective that needs to describe our homes, our Wards, our Stakes, etc. He also said that the Saints will never be asked to move again. So, we stay put and we work toward creating Zion.

This is very interesting. Here's a perfect example of being able to compare what our leaders say to what we read in the scriptures.

Let's see what Elder Holland actually said.

Here we go again! Little did they know that they were going to an entirely new continent to establish a whole new concept of Zion,

Elder Holland references 1 Nephi 18:22-24 for that statement. The problem is, Nephi said they were going to a land of promise, he never said Zion. Nor is there any evidence at all that they sought to build a new concept of Zion. Seriously, a new concept of Zion? The problem with this talk is that from the very start, Elder Holland redefines what the definition of Zion is. So, let's look at a scripture that tells us what Zion is.

19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.
20 And it came to pass that Enoch talked with the Lord; and he said unto the Lord: Surely Zion shall dwell in safety forever. But the Lord said unto Enoch: Zion have I blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed.
21 And it came to pass that the Lord showed unto Enoch all the inhabitants of the earth; and he beheld, and lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever.
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
23 And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations of the earth were before him;(Moses 7)

Here we see that Zion is in fact a city. A city that was taken up into heaven. In the next few verses we see that Zion will return to a specific location, which shall be a city which the Lord will prepare to receive the city of Zion that was taken to heaven.

62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.
63 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other;
64 And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest.

We also see that the Lord will gather His elect from the four quarters of the earth, to bring them to this city. These words are pretty clear.

25 Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed. (Doctrine and Covenants 49)

66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God;
67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.
70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.
71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy.(Doctrine and Covenants 45)

I could continue, but it seems that these scriptures speak for themselves. Zion will be a city, a place of refuge, a place where the righteous will flee.

What does Elder Holland say about Zion?

Zion. The promised land. The New Jerusalem. Where is it? Well, we are not sure, but we will find it. For more than 4,000 years of covenantal history, this has been the pattern: Flee and seek. Run and settle. Escape Babylon. Build Zion’s protective walls.

Until now. Until tonight. Until this our day.

Zion would be everywhere—wherever the Church is. And with that change—one of the mighty changes of the last days—we no longer think of Zion as where we are going to live; we think of it as how we are going to live.

Interestingly, all of the scriptures I quoted came from these last days. They all came by way of Joseph Smith. So, are there other scriptures that are revelations given to the brethren that talk about this change? Where is the reference to the revelation? If there's been a change I want to know about it. The scriptures referenced in that talk don't reference that change.

To me this seems like the definition of abandoning a doctrine or a gospel truth. Isn't abandoning doctrine or truth considered apostasy? Or, is this simply another example of transfiguring the word of God as Moroni describes in Mormon 8?

[rewcox]

You creating a dilemma where there is none, Thomas. Nobody is claiming that"all is well" in Zion. Of course we still have alot of improvement that needs to be made as a church. I personally think that the Church does not talk about these deep principles as much anymore because the general membership is an ever expanding demographic that, as a whole, is mostly suitable for digesting "milk".

Heck, look at how divided we are in opinion about who the current prophet is! Look at how divided we are on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, plural marriage, gender roles, women holding priesthood, etc... Mention any of these in a Sunday school class and you will see the class divide into camps of beliefs. Could you imagine us discussing the Second Comforter, Blood Atonement, Calling and Election, Godhood, etc... in Sunday School class around the world? After word got out about all the "crazy stuff" that we are teaching, we'd either stifle the missionary work for several decades, at least or be asked to leave certain countries altogether! Our not discussing these sacred teachings in no way indicates that they have been repudiated or "changed", as Snuffer charges, it just shows a priority for the Church to focus on the one message that will do the most amount of good to the most amount of God's children. The first four principles and ordinances of the Gospel and temple attendance are the "milk" that will surely put Heavenly Father's children on the road to the CK.

Having a knowledge about Godhood or a Heavenly Mother is nice to know, but in the grand scheme of things, these will not insure your salvation.

To get back to the OP, once we stray from the basics (TSM is the prophet of God, baptism is essential for salvation) we are indeed on the road to apostasy, and unless we repent and come back to the fold, we must be "silenced" to protect the other sheep that may fall prey to the crafty wording that we might use to draw them away.

Oh, wow, Rick! Thank you for this superb post. Most of the LDS people that I know would never say all is well in Zion. They repeatedly talk about the things we need to be doing as a people to draw closer to the Savior and to become more like him. It seems that many here think that because we aren't talking about the "deep things" (as they have been referenced) that we are saying all is well. Just not so! There is no doubt in mind that many of the people I know in my Ward are deeply concerned about how we need to be doing more to become a Zion people. If anyone has read the talk Elder Holland gave about 1 1/2 to 2 yrs. ago at a young adult fireside that was broadcast...he said that zion is no longer a place (noun)...that it is an adjective that needs to describe our homes, our Wards, our Stakes, etc. He also said that the Saints will never be asked to move again. So, we stay put and we work toward creating Zion. That indicates to me that we are definitely not there yet and we need to be concentrating on that. On a side note regarding Denver Snuffer. That is not our stewardship. None of us were there and none of us know for sure all that went on....also with the latest case with Brent. If we would expend as much energy on creating Zion as we do with some of these issues, we would be much better off. I dare say that most of us are not fluent and understanding enough in the basic principles of the gospel.

Ok, here is your test.....Repeat the 13 Articles of Faith.....can you do it?

[eyes2see]

I have come to the following conclusions:

-A prophet isn't always a President
-A President isn't always a prophet
-God can call as many prophets as He wishes, from wherever, to deliver a message.
-There can only be one President of the Church.
-God appears to be ok with having multiple prophets at a the same time, both from within and without his accepted "structure"

So from the above framework:

-Denver Snuffer can be a prophet.
-Denver Snuffer cannot be the President of the Church. And nobody is suggesting he should be.
-Thomas Monson can be a prophet. But he is not a prophet just be virtue of being a President. When a new President is called, the church even encourages the membership to gain a testimony of his prophetic status.
-Thomas Monson is the President of the Church, sustained by the membership as such. Nobody else has that right.

I don't think believing "others" can be prophets constitutes apostasy. Nor do I think someone who has not gained a testimony that the current President is a prophet constitutes apostasy, unless there is a hidden statute of limitations on such things.

The problem with accepting a president of the corporation* without believing he is also a prophet is that you can't answer "yes" to the second TR question without qualifying the titles of "prophet, seer, and revelator" as mere corporate designations.

This is a fundamental issue because once inside the temple you are expected to pledge unqualified support to the corporation which is being run by this man/these men.

Believing that the FP and Q15 are "prophets, seers, and revelators" matters. Once that domino topples, it's very easy to ask where the evidence is that Zion is being built or why the church builds lavish edifices while the poor go hungry just outside the temple gates. Even acknowledging these men as fallible opens a dangerous gateway for many members. So we've hedged up the way with an unsubstantiated cultural dogma of infallibility, whose very existence points to apostasy, at least among the church membership.


* It isn't my intent to use this word disparagingly. President is the corporate designation not the ecclesiastical one, as in "Corporation of the President".

[ajax]

I could continue

I'll just add one:

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent...

[Thomas]

I wish you all could understand how much effort Brent has put into establishing Zion. For that to be done, you need to know what Zion actually is. There is no poor in Zion. All things are held in common ownership. Most LDS would call that communism. Christ dwells among the people. Zion needs to be established by power. Power of Christ.

Joseph Smith said, a man can be saved only as fast a he acquires knowledge. When some will agree to say, all is not well, they probably are thinking, maybe we need to do some more home teaching or bake some better cookies for the next fundraiser. Isaiah and Nephi say, we are headed to hell! Are you people not concerned about that?

It is the fact that we not establishing Zion that has people like me so concerned. The idea of what Zion even is has been corrupted. The idea that we can be saved by dumbing down the doctrine, when Joseph said, only great knowledge saves. That combined with scriptural warnings of our impending destruction and subsequent descent into hell has me quite concerned.

Read 2 Nephi 28 again pray about what it means. Who was it meant for. Did they write on the plates and expend all that effort to warn people who will never read the Book of Mormon? Does a writer write for his intended audience? If God is the author, is he smart enough to write for who will read it? Is there another people who call themselves Zion? Were the warnings put there to make us look down on others and fell good about our selves? Can anyone be saved who is full of pride and looks down on all the other people not of his religion. If the warnings were for others, would that not be the only purpose for them to be in the book, to build up our pride?

[Thomas]

eyes2sewrote: Believing that the FP and Q15 are "prophets, seers, and revelators" matters. Once that domino topples, it's very easy to ask where the evidence is that Zion is being built or why the church builds lavish edifices while the poor go hungry just outside the temple gates. Even acknowledging these men as fallible opens a dangerous gateway for many members. So we've hedged up the way with an unsubstantiated cultural dogma of infallibility, whose very existence points to apostasy, at least among the church membership.

The question asks if we sustain them. It doesn't ask if we believe they are prophets, seers and revelators.

Why would we not be able to question anything the 15 do. The church is supposed to be run on common consent, not dictatorship. Every stake high council is equal in authority to the first presidency. The main body of the priesthood is supposed to choose the first presidency.

Where do the 15 claim infallibility? Uchtdorf said they make mistakes, in his last conference talk. D&C 107 has instructions to remove the prophet from his office, in case of transgression. Why would that be there if they could not fail? Could it be that we are morphing into a Catholic way of doing things, while most members remain ignorant about how God set the church up? All one needs to do is actually read the D&C and see how far away from the way Joseph set things up we are.

[SAM]

President is the corporate designation not the ecclesiastical one, as in "Corporation of the President".

I apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to convey here, but my understanding is that President is also an ecclesiastical one, i.e. D&C 102:9.

The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church.

So, the president is the chief administrator. This was set-up long before the church had ever become a corporation.

I agree with ajax's assessment (below) and, I believe that one can sustain the church president, his counselors and the apostles as prophets, seers and revelators with the understanding and hope that they are those things or are, at least, striving to be them. I don't think everything they do is according to revelation. Quite frankly, with the amount of responsibility they have running an organization and corporation as large as the church, with its many different arms, I doubt they have much time to receive revelation on every little thing they are doing or saying. It is unreasonable to even think they do. However, just because there are others outside of the 15 chief administrators of the church prophesying, it does not take away from the presidency's and apostles' ability or charge to also be PSR's. It's not a mutually exclusive proposition. The Lord can send any messengers he wants to be able to reach as many souls as will hearken to the voice of the shepherd. We should be rejoicing to see more people speaking of Christ. Some do try to set themselves up as a light and take over the chief seat that Thomas S Monson rightfully holds, but there are many who have no such ambitions (such as Denver Snuffer) who only speak of repentance and coming to Christ. The President Monsons and Denver Snuffers of the world don't have to be at odds with one another and we don't have to choose between them. We can choose to take the good from both and then turn to Christ, which is ultimately the only that really matters.

I have come to the following conclusions:

-A prophet isn't always a President
-A President isn't always a prophet
-God can call as many prophets as He wishes, from wherever, to deliver a message.
-There can only be one President of the Church.
-God appears to be ok with having multiple prophets at a the same time, both from within and without his accepted "structure"

So from the above framework:

-Denver Snuffer can be a prophet.
-Denver Snuffer cannot be the President of the Church. And nobody is suggesting he should be.
-Thomas Monson can be a prophet. But he is not a prophet just be virtue of being a President. When a new President is called, the church even encourages the membership to gain a testimony of his prophetic status.
-Thomas Monson is the President of the Church, sustained by the memebership as such. Nobody else has that right.

I don't think believing "others" can be prophets constitutes apostasy. Nor do I think someone who has not gained a testimony that the current President is a prophet constitutes apostasy, unless there is a hidden statute of limitations on such things.

[eyes2see]

Thomas,

You are correct, the question uses the word "sustain" not believe.

I never said the 15 claim infallibility. I specifically stated "cultural dogma of infallibility".

[Thomas]

Thomas,

You are correct, the question uses the word "sustain" not believe.

I never said the 15 claim infallibility. I specifically stated "cultural dogma of infallibility".

Sorry.

[eyes2see]

However, just because there are others outside of the 15 chief administrators of the church prophesying, it does not take away from the presidency's and apostles' ability or charge to also be PSR's. It's not a mutually exclusive proposition. The Lord can send any messengers he wants to be able to reach as many souls as will hearken to the voice of the shepherd. We should be rejoicing to see more people speaking of Christ. Some do try to set themselves up as a light and take over the chief seat that Thomas S Monson rightfully holds, but there are many who have no such ambitions (such as Denver Snuffer) who only speak of repentance and coming to Christ. The President Monsons and Denver Snuffers of the world don't have to be at odds with one another and we don't have to choose between them. We can choose to take the good from both and then turn to Christ, which is ultimately the only that really matters.
]

Chicafoom,

I completely agree with what you've written.

My point was that the commitment to uphold the 15 as PSRs, something beyond merely organizational leader or corporate officer, has tangible consequences which is, I assume, why this matter is considered "core" by some of the posters in this thread and why I believe we have culturally accepted dogma of infallibility. It is not true doctrine but it may as well be for all practical purposes. If you do not see the 15 as PSRs, why would you trust their judgement when it comes to building up Zion or carrying out the Lord's work? I'm not leveling accusations, I am asking because I want to understand.

These are the kinds of questions I've discussed with my Catholic mother-in-law. For years she has been disaffected and non-practicing. I asked her why she still considered herself a Catholic. She could never answer in a way that satisfied either of us. Isn't that the crux of the matter in all of these threads? Whether being a member of the Church hinges on accepting the Church president as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator? Possibly as one of the only 15 on the planet? Maybe I am misreading but there are threads calling the forum apostate. Others calling Denver's admirers a cult. And here is yet another attempting to define apostasy - a thing you cannot define without recognizing it's opposite. Perhaps, we need to outline orthodoxy before we define apostasy. What is it that makes someone an orthodox member of the church?

[Jake]

Chicafoom,

I completely agree with what you've written.

My point was that the commitment to uphold the 15 as PSRs, something beyond merely organizational leader or corporate officer, has tangible consequences which is, I assume, why this matter is considered "core" by some of the posters in this thread and why I believe we have culturally accepted dogma of infallibility. It is not true doctrine but it may as well be for all practical purposes. If you do not see the 15 as PSRs, why would you trust their judgement when it comes to building up Zion or carrying out the Lord's work? I'm not leveling accusations, I am asking because I want to understand.

These are the kinds of questions I've discussed with my Catholic mother-in-law. For years she has been disaffected and non-practicing. I asked her why she still considered herself a Catholic. She could never answer in a way that satisfied either of us. Isn't that the crux of the matter in all of these threads? Whether being a member of the Church hinges on accepting the Church president as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator? Possibly as one of the only 15 on the planet? Maybe I am misreading but there are threads calling the forum apostate. Others calling Denver's admirers a cult. And here is yet another attempting to define apostasy - a thing you cannot define without recognizing it's opposite. Perhaps, we need to outline orthodoxy before we define apostasy. What is it that makes someone an orthodox member of the church?

We have somewhat of an orthodoxy in the 13 Articles of Faith. However, even these leave much room for interpretation. The minute we have an orthodoxy that men must adhere to or be asked out of our church, we have created a creed that is an abomination before God.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

We as LDS always look at this to say that all other creeds are bad and ours is good. We really ought to see this as a denouncing of ALL creeds. Joseph taught as much: "Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." We proudly go about saying that all other creeds of Christianity are corrupt, but then turn around and start acting just like them.

So you can't really have an orthodoxy. Everyone is at a different place in their understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the church cracks down on those who are unorthodox, it becomes more and more Catholic. I heard someone say once that the only difference between the Mormons and the Catholics is 1800 years. Whoever said that was wise indeed.

[Army Of Truth]

The question asks if we sustain them. It doesn't ask if we believe they are prophets, seers and revelators.

Why would we not be able to question anything the 15 do. The church is supposed to be run on common consent, not dictatorship. Every stake high council is equal in authority to the first presidency. The main body of the priesthood is supposed to choose the first presidency.

Where do the 15 claim infallibility? Uchtdorf said they make mistakes, in his last conference talk. D&C 107 has instructions to remove the prophet from his office, in case of transgression. Why would that be there if they could not fail? Could it be that we are morphing into a Catholic way of doing things, while most members remain ignorant about how God set the church up? All one needs to do is actually read the D&C and see how far away from the way Joseph set things up we are.

1. The question we are asked actually does ask if we believe they are prophets, seers, and revelators. Here is the question again:

"Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?"

2. The church is run on common consent, not dictatorship. That is why we sustain or oppose our leadership by vote.

3. Who mentioned anything about the "infallibility" of our leadership?

[DrJay]

I wish you all could understand how much effort Brent has put into establishing Zion. For that to be done, you need to know what Zion actually is. There is no poor in Zion. All things are held in common ownership. Most LDS would call that communism. Christ dwells among the people. Zion needs to be established by power. Power of Christ.

Joseph Smith said, a man can be saved only as fast a he acquires knowledge. When some will agree to say, all is not well, they probably are thinking, maybe we need to do some more home teaching or bake some better cookies for the next fundraiser. Isaiah and Nephi say, we are headed to hell! Are you people not concerned about that?

It is the fact that we not establishing Zion that has people like me so concerned. The idea of what Zion even is has been corrupted. The idea that we can be saved by dumbing down the doctrine, when Joseph said, only great knowledge saves. That combined with scriptural warnings of our impending destruction and subsequent descent into hell has me quite concerned.

Read 2 Nephi 28 again pray about what it means. Who was it meant for. Did they write on the plates and expend all that effort to warn people who will never read the Book of Mormon? Does a writer write for his intended audience? If God is the author, is he smart enough to write for who will read it? Is there another people who call themselves Zion? Were the warnings put there to make us look down on others and fell good about our selves? Can anyone be saved who is full of pride and looks down on all the other people not of his religion. If the warnings were for others, would that not be the only purpose for them to be in the book, to build up our pride?

It might be as simple as to realize that Zion is not about any religion. It is my understanding that people of many different religions will embrace Zion. If Zion accepts people of many religions, it may be among us, even now, and those that "Know" how it is "supposed" to happen, will never even recognize it, much less live within it. You don't have to be LDS to love and accept one another. Luckily Joseph Smith did give us what to look for, and where it will be.