Identifying and Coping with "Unrighteous Dominion"

[underdog]

The Lord warns about unrighteous dominion poignantly in D&C 121:

2 aHow long shall thy hand be stayed, and thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and of thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries?
3 Yea, O Lord, ahow long shall they suffer these wrongs and unlawful boppressions, before thine heart shall be softened toward them, and thy bowels be moved with ccompassion toward them?

34 Behold, there are many acalled, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their ahearts are set so much upon the things of this bworld, and caspire to the dhonors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the arights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be bcontrolled nor handled only upon the cprinciples of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to acover our bsins, or to gratify our cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to akick against the pricks, to bpersecute the saints, and to cfight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but afew are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the bpriesthood, only by cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By akindness, and pure bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the csoul without dhypocrisy, and without guile—

Here are some thoughts about identifying and coping with unrighteous dominion:

1. Identifying UD -- bullying, compulsion, forcing, Satan's methods, fear-mongering, back-biting, false accusations, constraints on free speech.

2. "Remember that to be Accused is NOT the same as to be Convicted" of wrong-doing. Bullies assertively accuse of wrong-doing, usually in bold but vague terms. Those who exercise the "true independence of heaven" (Brigham Young) do not accept/believe the accusations without doing some checking and verification first, and then they remember the role of repentance and the Atonement without condemning the accused.

3. Our inclination (I've noticed) when someone in authority (e.g. police, administrators) says one has done Wrong or is in Trouble, our tendency is to believe him, feel bad/worried and to immediately concede -- then later feel bad about caving in, once one has had time to think things through more calmly.

4. Bullies want us to act NOW, immediately, basically while the fear-hormones are still clouding our thinking. Therefore, we should resolve in advance (like now) while we are thinking calmly that we will NOT REACT WITH FEAR, knee-jerk quickly -- but will give ourselves time to settle, think things through, act out of love and faith and sound principles.

5. Sometimes we flee, sometimes we fight -- and the Lord will tell us "whither to flee" and "whether to fight" (see Alma 48, for example). Often this comes by direct personal revelation; we must seek this inspiration daily and BEFORE the provocation of bullies.

I would appreciate others' thought on how to cope with unrighteous dominion. It can be a real trial in life, and is SO common.

I think there is tendency to equate unrighteous dominion with acts of aggression, violence, intimidation and sundry other such behaviors. Certainly these are some of the most disagreeable and the most observable but over the years I have learned that everyone has a little bully in them.

Not always the kind of bully that is demonstrative with bombastic behaviors. However, everyone has found a behavior or behaviors that allows them to manipulate a situation to their own advantage. We may see it in wives or girl friends who cry readily to garner a sympathy response to get what they want. I have a son that is an exceptional salesman who simply pushes ever so gently through the process of identifying what you want and then giving it to you. Mine has always been knowledge. From a young age , I learned that if I knew more than everyone else I could dominate in a majority of situations. I didn't have to demonstrate a single physically intimidating behavior but it was intimidation just the same.

Many of us leave these behaviors with maturity and an improving sense of our own self-worth. However, many lock into them thinking getting their way is the most important thing.

Based on these observations, I have made specific effort to move each of my children through their natural style of bullying by identifying their technique and then over the course of their maturation establishing the environment where they flourish more in the absence of that technique than in its usage.

Unrighteous dominion in the context of the Gospel is really speaking to a limited and select group. Sure wives and children can exercise unrighteous dominion, but the greater concern is those that are granted Priesthood authority.

It is kind of a two fold issue. Can a priesthood holder establish dominion and maintain it using righteous principles? Or, two when he is pushed to the edge will he resort to behaviors of intimidation etc.

In his dominion will he protect those under his care from familial unrighteous dominion also upon proper principles. In my early marriage, my wife was a screamer and a yeller. That is what she grew up under and was the natural response to having her authority challenged. When this behavior was directed towards the children, I saw it as my job to protect them from their mother and I would gently terminate the conflict and resolve. As you can imagine that can be an escalating moment but I never abdicated my role as the protector in the family. I am trying to protect them psychologically more than physically in this situation. Over the years she has completely overcome these tendencies mostly because she has learned that her authority is not dependent on others doing things her way. It is not diminished when she is exercising correct principles of patience, longsuffering etc. It is enhanced by her becoming comfortable that she is the maternal authority.

As my children have entered adulthood both my wife an I have been amazed how remarkable confident and stable our children are. She and they credit me for the stabilizing role I played but my response has always been that I never knew if what I was doing was being done correctly. I did not have an overwhelming sense of direction in these things. However, early on I adopted the behavior I felt was most like how my Father in Heaven treated me and that has made all the difference.

The bottom line in my perception is that these men who hold the priesthood are ever engaged in a sifting process that will determine who can be given absolute power and maintain states of Godliness or who under a managed scenario of familial authority will draw upon the natural tendencies of maleness and dominate to the destruction of the self worth and more of those around him.

Thank you, Br. Lenox!

You concluded: "The bottom line in my perception is that these men who hold the priesthood are ever engaged in a sifting process that will determine who can be given absolute power and maintain states of Godliness or who under a managed scenario of familial authority will draw upon the natural tendencies of maleness and dominate to the destruction of the self worth and more of those around him."

Couldn't agree with you more that the test is afoot! Esp for priesthood holders. The one lesson we must get is that,

"That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

It's a sifting process indeed. And unfortunately all most all of us will fail because "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

Sobering!

How to overcome and be chosen and not just called? What a wonderful question to ponder!

Christ says to become as a little child, and to be baptized with water and fire and to build a foundation on strictly this doctrine. It's all about humility and submission to the will of God.

[marc]

Some relevant scriptures directly from the Lord's mouth:

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

D&C 58:20 Let no man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that counseleth or sitteth upon the judgment seat.

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

D&C 98:11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.

13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.

[Juliet]

The best way to stand up to unrighteous dominion, is to stand up to it no matter the cost. That is why men and women have died for our freedom, because it is that important. So, if someone is mistreating you, tell them to stop. If someone is forcing you to do something by force, say 'no'. If someone is bullying or manipulating you, tell them they are using compulsion and that you don't respond to that. If someone is putting you down, tell them they are putting you down and you won't be manipulated with such an attack. If someone threatens violence, stand up and do the right thing anyway. If I was scared for my physical safety, I would say, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to depart." If we exercise our belief in the authority of Jesus' name, we all have a right to act according to our agency according to our conscience, and no man, woman, child, government, or secret combination is allowed power to force us to do anything against our morals.

I know all the tricks of fighting the spirit of compulsion. My 5 year old son teaches them to me every day.

[underdog]

Some relevant scriptures directly from the Lord's mouth:

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

D&C 58:20 Let no man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that counseleth or sitteth upon the judgment seat.

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

D&C 98:11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.

13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.

Marc,

Thanks for quoting those scriptures. May I ask you for your answers to my questions:

1) The stake president said, "If a man has righteous intentions, he CANNOT practice unrighteous dominion!" Do you agree or disagree, and why?

2) When a keys holder attempts to have their ideas or will adopted BECAUSE they have "authority" or the keys, is that unrighteous dominion?

3) Lastly, is there a point where unrighteous dominion becomes too great, and members should not tolerate it, so to speak? At what point should members in a ward say enough is enough and bring two witnesses forth to express their grievance to the stake president? Of course, it is assumed these two (or more) members will have already expressed their concerns directly to the bishop.

[brlenox]

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

Thank you for clarifying, Passionflower.

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness. Please be aware that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or the arm of flesh, as Nephi said. And obviously cursed is he / she who violates the very 1st of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Only Christ saves. Christ is the Light, not man. We should seek to align ourselves with HIM, and not with any man. Not even a true prophet would ever encourage others to align themselves with him. We must worship Christ and Christ alone. There's only one name under heaven whereby man is saved, and that's Christ. We must look unto Him in every thought, and doubt not and fear not. We must keep our eye single to His glory, recognizing that He is the keeper of the gate, employing no servant there.

I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any priesthood holder, ESP those who ask for you to be aligned with him "by virtue of the priesthood" (DC 121:41). Because no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. If I err in doctrine, please, I humbly ask to be corrected.

I wonder, if, perhaps, just maybe, is it possible....that one might benefit by understanding more completely, with greater accuracy, the scriptural implications and meanings of the phrase "arm of flesh". Simply because a person is composed of flesh is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Your entire commentary has the feel of a budding diatribe against the leaders of the church and "is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon". "I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any" one that does not understand Christ's means of governance through the priesthood and the officers that he has placed as legitimate spokespersons of his will. It is not a state of wickedness and idolatry to respect those whom he has called to assist in guiding his children and to use them as part of the means he has ordained to teach correct principles, along with scripture and the Holy Ghost as guides.

"I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. Since you have erred in doctrine, I appreciate that you have asked "to be corrected."

My dear brethren, this is an answer to the great challenge of our time. The word of God, as found in the scriptures, in the words of living prophets, and in personal revelation, has the power to fortify the Saints and arm them with the Spirit so they can resist evil, hold fast to the good, and find joy in this life.(The Power of the Word, Ezra Taft Benson, 1986.President of the Church)

There is a place for every key element which the Savior provided for the benefit of mankind. We need scriptures, we need personal revelation, and we need living prophets, each a part of a triad of necessity in enabling mankind to return to our Father. "Arm of flesh" is a term to convey a particular state of being but it is not a state of being mortal that qualifies for a correct application of the terminology.

[marc]

Underdog, I'm not inclined to offer opinions on those scenarios, but I will share only one example from my own life. When I was new to my ward, I went in for my year end tithing settlement interview. My bishop began to lecture me about wearing a beard and also wearing a white shirt and necktie to church and lectured me why I needed to do so, and that wearing such was wearing what he termed "the priesthood uniform." Now I love my bishop and I consider him a decent man who tries his best to follow the Lord, but is sometimes seemingly compelled to "enforce" upon others such as me, what has been "enforced" upon him. Perhaps the words "to impose" or "to correct" is more appropriate. It doesn't change the circumstances.

He lectured me on how when he was called to be the bishop, he was required to shave his beard and dress appropriately. I patiently listened to him and after he finished, I told him that I disagree with his philosophy regarding a priesthood uniform. I did tell him that although I disagreed with him, I would wear what he imposed upon me if that's what he wanted. My intention was to change the conversation where I would willingly do this for him and not because he was compelling me. He just said, "I want you to wear it." So for the last three years, I have been wearing the "priesthood uniform" because he has imposed upon me to do so. I was cheerful throughout our meeting and at the end of the interview, I said, "I love you, bishop," and I gave him a hug.

Now contrast the following two quotes:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” --Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.

And:

“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.”--Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, vol. 14, #38, p 593-595

Now you will always have the choice to obey man or obey God. Now it wasn't God's will that I not wear a shirt and tie to church. Frankly, I don't believe God cares what I wear to church. But I do believe that He cares that I take the sacrament worthily and witness to Him that I always remember Him and keep His commandments. And His Spirit is always with me because of it. If my bishop had compelled me to do something contrary to what I know to be God's commandments, I would have smiled and flat out refused. Therefore if even President Monson were to compel me to walk a mile north, I would start walking north. But if the Lord told me to start walking south, I would promptly start walking south without a second thought and maintain that bearing until the Lord said otherwise.

[underdog]

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

Thank you for clarifying, Passionflower.

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness. Please be aware that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or the arm of flesh, as Nephi said. And obviously cursed is he / she who violates the very 1st of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Only Christ saves. Christ is the Light, not man. We should seek to align ourselves with HIM, and not with any man. Not even a true prophet would ever encourage others to align themselves with him. We must worship Christ and Christ alone. There's only one name under heaven whereby man is saved, and that's Christ. We must look unto Him in every thought, and doubt not and fear not. We must keep our eye single to His glory, recognizing that He is the keeper of the gate, employing no servant there.

I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any priesthood holder, ESP those who ask for you to be aligned with him "by virtue of the priesthood" (DC 121:41). Because no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. If I err in doctrine, please, I humbly ask to be corrected.

I wonder, if, perhaps, just maybe, is it possible....that one might benefit by understanding more completely, with greater accuracy, the scriptural implications and meanings of the phrase "arm of flesh". Simply because a person is composed of flesh is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Your entire commentary has the feel of a budding diatribe against the leaders of the church and "is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon". "I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any" one that does not understand Christ's means of governance through the priesthood and the officers that he has placed as legitimate spokespersons of his will. It is not a state of wickedness and idolatry to respect those whom he has called to assist in guiding his children and to use them as part of the means he has ordained to teach correct principles, along with scripture and the Holy Ghost as guides.

"I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. Since you have erred in doctrine, I appreciate that you have asked "to be corrected."

My dear brethren, this is an answer to the great challenge of our time. The word of God, as found in the scriptures, in the words of living prophets, and in personal revelation, has the power to fortify the Saints and arm them with the Spirit so they can resist evil, hold fast to the good, and find joy in this life.(The Power of the Word, Ezra Taft Benson, 1986.President of the Church)

There is a place for every key element which the Savior provided for the benefit of mankind. We need scriptures, we need personal revelation, and we need living prophets, each a part of a triad of necessity in enabling mankind to return to our Father. "Arm of flesh" is a term to convey a particular state of being but it is not a state of being mortal that qualifies for a correct application of the terminology.

Thank you, Br. Lenox!

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh* is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

You said: Your entire commentary has the feel of a budding diatribe against the leaders of the church and "is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon".

Me: How? I'm saying we should follow Christ and align ourselves with Him. What do you disagree with about that?

You said: "I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any" one that does not understand Christ's means of governance through the priesthood and the officers that he has placed as legitimate spokespersons of his will.

Me: Who by name has the Lord specified as legitimate spokespeople or spokesperson? Scriptural reference please.

You said: "It is not a state of wickedness and idolatry to **respect those whom he has called to assist in guiding his children and to use them as part of the means he has ordained to teach correct principles, along with scripture and the Holy Ghost as guides."

Me: I agree. You are, for the second separate time (**straw man #2), ascribing a false statement to me and then attacking it. For somebody who describes themselves as smarter than most everyone else (you said in an above comment that you are able to "manipulate a situation to [your] own advantage because of "knowledge. From a young age , I learned that if I knew more than everyone else I could dominate in a majority of situations. I didn't have to demonstrate a single physically intimidating behavior but it was intimidation just the same."), I have high expectations that you would be accurate and I would hope be equally honest (esp since my comments can be seen on this very page). Building straw men (as you've done twice) is popular with folks who don't have a sound argument based on Scriptures. A straw man is a lie or misrepresentation ascribed to the person you disagree with. Then you attack the lie/misrepresentation. Actually, here's a 3rd party definition I just found: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." I invite you to stop the digression and to focus on the questions I have raised.

You said: "I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. Since you have erred in doctrine, I appreciate that you have asked "to be corrected."

Me: Certainly I haven't been offended. Please forgive me too, for having to publicly call out your dishonorable techniques designed to malign me, all the while avoiding the very questions I bring to light. Straw man arguments are purposely used to avoid the main topic, which makes the person uncomfortable and squirmy.

You said: "Arm of flesh" is a term to convey a particular state of being but it is not a state of being mortal that qualifies for a correct application of the terminology.

Me: Seems you're getting unnecessarily pedantic in your attempt to define something that is quite simple for the common man to understand. There's no need to insinuate that this is a tricky phrase to understand and you must pull out a scholar's dictionary to grasp. It's quite obvious what Nephi means when he says, "O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." Do you really have a problem with this meaning that we should trust the Lord and not man? Is this what you want to be contentious about? Do you really want to find yourself arguing to elevate man (the Brethren) to the level of the Lord? I can see this struck a nerve with you. By your response, I see that you were actually offended by me showing the mirror to Passionflower, because it's a mirror reflecting an unflattering truth to you. It is idolatry. I was guilty of it too. I was in your shoes not too long ago, my good brother.

Perhaps you will accept another similar quote from Nephi (from 2 Nephi 28), using the same phrase but with some clarity to ease your mind about my interpretation: "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost."

This verse does a good job of equating arm of flesh with trusting in man, don't you think?

And just to bring this discussion back to my original questions, in which I wanted to hear from fellow Mormons, here are my 3 questions which have gotten lost from someone's attempt to digress:

1) The stake president said, "If a man has righteous intentions, he CANNOT practice unrighteous dominion!" Do you agree or disagree, and why? Is this idea uttered by the SP "given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?

2) When a keys holder attempts to have their ideas or will adopted BECAUSE they have "authority" or the keys, is that unrighteous dominion? Is this idea uttered by the SP "given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?

3) Lastly, is there a point where unrighteous dominion becomes too great, and members should not tolerate it, so to speak? At what point should members in a ward say enough is enough and bring two witnesses forth to express their grievance to the stake president? Of course, it is assumed these two (or more) members will have already expressed their concerns directly to the bishop.

[AI2.0]

"Unrighteous dominion" as found in the scriptures is instruction on how a Priesthood holder should avoid using his Priesthood authority in a way that is personally aggrandizing or in a manner that excuses sin , and is not referring to otherwise obnoxious behaviours or poor personality traits of random church members, or the way someone treats others in general.

The verses in section 121 that preface vs 37 are these: "Behold there are many called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson----That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness"

In these verses, Joseph Smith is describing the way "priesthood" is "held" in the various protestant denominations around them, and how this is not acceptable in the Kingdom of God.

Vs 37 goes on to say, "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man."

In these scriptures, JS is not finding fault with church members in general, but is being specific to the Priesthood. For instance, a baptist minister could commit adultery, and still consider himself "called of God" and fully able to baptize, preach to his congregation, etc. And certainly aggrandizing himself was what his "calling" was all about. Most, if not all of the persecution waged against the Latter Day Saints in Missouri was sparked by Protestant preachers, who, back then, as the most influential leaders of their communities, who, in the name of God, can truly be described as using an unrighteous control and dominion over others, in working their fellow citizens up to drive the Mormons out of MIssouri(whom these preachers saw as competitors). Today, a cathoiic priest maintains his priesthood even if a child molester, with other christian denominations condoning the ordination of openly gay priests. And I don't think I have to talk about leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who, in the name of God, sanction the destruction of property, murder of civilians, and a most destructive idealogie, or in other words exemplifying the complete opposite of charity, and all in the name of God ( or Allah ).

Joseph Smith had a real bee in his bonnet when it came to anything sectarian finding it's way into the restored church. And he wasn't entirely successful. I still find many beliefs and behaviours church members think is "gospel" that really stem from the influence of the catholic and protestant worlds.

These vs in section 121 deal with much more serious behaviour on the part of a Priesthood holder than a manifestation of poor personality traits or the venting of frustration by bullying, or not giving his wife or children enough personal freedom or respect. These are problems, yes, but they are not what these scriptures are talking about.

They do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren."

Yes, having to work with somebody who is bossy, controlling, dominating and vents their frustrations in life through bullying and treating others as non people, IS a really really bad problem, and it is becoming worse and worse everyday. But this is not what section 121 is talking about.

IMO, among the problems holding back the progress of the church is poor social skills among the members, lack of personal self awareness, feelings of inferiority. with just a plain lack of social standards, expectations, and manners of propriety that are strictly upheld. Too many people are sort of "doing their own thing" when it comes to the treatment of others ( which usually arises from a neglected upbringing ) instead of submitting themselves as a whole to something higher. (Rules on forum, for instance, that everyone has to agree to before joining, create order and peace ) And unfortunately, leadership positions on the ward and stake level tend to go to a bossy person with an "I am the only one who knows how to the job right" mentality, and not someone with true leadership ability( because such a person is very rare ).

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

Thank you for clarifying, Passionflower.

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness. Please be aware that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or the arm of flesh, as Nephi said. And obviously cursed is he / she who violates the very 1st of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Only Christ saves. Christ is the Light, not man. We should seek to align ourselves with HIM, and not with any man. Not even a true prophet would ever encourage others to align themselves with him. We must worship Christ and Christ alone. There's only one name under heaven whereby man is saved, and that's Christ. We must look unto Him in every thought, and doubt not and fear not. We must keep our eye single to His glory, recognizing that He is the keeper of the gate, employing no servant there.

I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any priesthood holder, ESP those who ask for you to be aligned with him "by virtue of the priesthood" (DC 121:41). Because no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. If I err in doctrine, please, I humbly ask to be corrected.

Underdog, what Passionflower said is exactly how the Saints of the church in the early days of the restoration understood. What you call 'gross idolatry and gross wickedness' was anything but that to the Saints--and you wouldn't have lasted a day in that church, because with an attitude like yours, --you wouldn't have gone to Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo, Council Bluffs or Salt Lake. You could not have lived the Law of Consecration, the united order etc. You wouldn't have gone to settle any of the difficult areas that early Saints settled and you wouldn't have left your family to serve a mission or lived Plural Marriage if asked to do so. Our ancestors in the church didn't consider it 'trusting in the arm of flesh' to submit to the priesthood authority of their leaders. The Sisters also understood and recognized that they were expected to submit to their husbands as their priesthood authority. I know it sounds old fashioned and I guess to you, offensive, but that's actually what they believed and some members still recognize it.

One thing this did is weed out the people who didn't have a strong testimony and conviction about what they were doing and the gospel they believed, and they, as a whole did some pretty incredible things, as a church and a people. I suspect we're going to need that level of trust in our Leaders, faithfulness in living the Gospel and willingness to submit to Heavenly Father's will as shared with us through his Servants, the Prophets if we are ever going to become a Zion people and build a New Jerusalem.

Also, whenever I hear people equate 'trusting in the arm of flesh' with sustaining and following our LDS church leaders, I worry they have fallen under the spell of Denver Snuffer. I sure hope you haven't made that mistake.

[brlenox]

Thank you, Br. Lenox!

You said (That being me-Brock): Simply because a person is composed of flesh* is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

You said: Your entire commentary has the feel of a budding diatribe against the leaders of the church and "is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon".

Me: How? I'm saying we should follow Christ and align ourselves with Him. What do you disagree with about that?

You said: "I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any" one that does not understand Christ's means of governance through the priesthood and the officers that he has placed as legitimate spokespersons of his will.

Me: Who by name has the Lord specified as legitimate spokespeople or spokesperson? Scriptural reference please.

You said: "It is not a state of wickedness and idolatry to **respect those whom he has called to assist in guiding his children and to use them as part of the means he has ordained to teach correct principles, along with scripture and the Holy Ghost as guides."

Me: I agree. You are, for the second separate time (**straw man #2), ascribing a false statement to me and then attacking it. For somebody who describes themselves as smarter than most everyone else (you said in an above comment that you are able to "manipulate a situation to [your] own advantage because of "knowledge. From a young age , I learned that if I knew more than everyone else I could dominate in a majority of situations. I didn't have to demonstrate a single physically intimidating behavior but it was intimidation just the same."), I have high expectations that you would be accurate and I would hope be equally honest (esp since my comments can be seen on this very page). Building straw men (as you've done twice) is popular with folks who don't have a sound argument based on Scriptures. A straw man is a lie or misrepresentation ascribed to the person you disagree with. Then you attack the lie/misrepresentation. Actually, here's a 3rd party definition I just found: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." I invite you to stop the digression and to focus on the questions I have raised.

You said: "I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. Since you have erred in doctrine, I appreciate that you have asked "to be corrected."

Me: Certainly I haven't been offended. Please forgive me too, for having to publicly call out your dishonorable techniques designed to malign me, all the while avoiding the very questions I bring to light. Straw man arguments are purposely used to avoid the main topic, which makes the person uncomfortable and squirmy.

You said: "Arm of flesh" is a term to convey a particular state of being but it is not a state of being mortal that qualifies for a correct application of the terminology.

Me: Seems you're getting unnecessarily pedantic in your attempt to define something that is quite simple for the common man to understand. There's no need to insinuate that this is a tricky phrase to understand and you must pull out a scholar's dictionary to grasp. It's quite obvious what Nephi means when he says, "O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." Do you really have a problem with this meaning that we should trust the Lord and not man? Is this what you want to be contentious about? Do you really want to find yourself arguing to elevate man (the Brethren) to the level of the Lord? I can see this struck a nerve with you. By your response, I see that you were actually offended by me showing the mirror to Passionflower, because it's a mirror reflecting an unflattering truth to you. It is idolatry. I was guilty of it too. I was in your shoes not too long ago, my good brother.

Perhaps you will accept another similar quote from Nephi (from 2 Nephi 28), using the same phrase but with some clarity to ease your mind about my interpretation: "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost."

This verse does a good job of equating arm of flesh with trusting in man, don't you think?

And just to bring this discussion back to my original questions, in which I wanted to hear from fellow Mormons, here are my 3 questions which have gotten lost from someone's attempt to digress:

1) The stake president said, "If a man has righteous intentions, he CANNOT practice unrighteous dominion!" Do you agree or disagree, and why? Is this idea uttered by the SP "given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?

2) When a keys holder attempts to have their ideas or will adopted BECAUSE they have "authority" or the keys, is that unrighteous dominion? Is this idea uttered by the SP "given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?

3) Lastly, is there a point where unrighteous dominion becomes too great, and members should not tolerate it, so to speak? At what point should members in a ward say enough is enough and bring two witnesses forth to express their grievance to the stake president? Of course, it is assumed these two (or more) members will have already expressed their concerns directly to the bishop.

Whoa, hold on there cowboy. I seem to have stirred me up a rattlesnakes nest here.

Let's calmly step back, take off our boots, pop open a sarsaparilla and chew the fat fer a bit concerning a few of your observations of my observations.

Your first observation was stated in the following context:

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh* is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

My response was generated by the terminology you utilized in the following:

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?).

A careful reading on this terminology might be construed by a number of people where English is their first language to equating "submitting to men" and your parenthetical statement of "arm of flesh" as being related to each other. I certainly thought that was the case. The state of being "men" appears to be synonymous with being an "arm of flesh". From my perspective as a reader of your material that seems a distinct possibility. We should also step back one more post to make another correlation. That being the general observation to which you crafted your response above.

You inquired of Passionflower, who could never have known how much I love passionflowers having grown them several times here in Utah (caerulea and edulis being the only two cold hardy enough to have a chance), but I digress...you engaged her in the following exchange:

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

If we take the key thoughts of your responses then here is the gist of your converstion:

1.) Your point of focus from your original post to passionflower is this observation:

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

2.)If we tie this observation above with this observation - I am inclined to think we have some clarity:

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness.

3.) Seems a pretty clear association that you are responding to a specific individual at the least. But Clearly in your reasoning the President of the Church is to be equated with being a member of the subset of the population called "men" and that subset is further clarified to be members of a scripturally referenced negatively defined subset of "the arm of flesh"

Tying these thoughts together was adequately convincing to me that you are focusing on submission to the brethren as priesthood authorities as the equivalent of submitting to men who you equate with the (arm of flesh) and further more that one specific person in particular is intended to be the subject of your comments and that is the President of the Church. Thus this leads us to my comment to which you took a bit of umbrage:

Simply because a person is composed of flesh is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Thus my terminology of "a righteous person" is in reference to your comments of "The President of the Church" and "brethren" who clearly are those described in your statement of being men and the "arm of flesh" to your interpretation of things. Since it became apparent that you were using the term "arm of flesh" to describe righteous leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that is an impossibility, then clearly at that juncture it became evident that you did not understand the terminology of "arm of flesh".

Now due to the length of the effort necessary to address your concerns let's just go with one at a time. There are few more observations that could be inquired after in your response to me that is pertaining this section like why you first say:

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

To state that you agree with me and then say that I have provided a definition that you do not accept and then that I am attacking the definition that you agreed with is at best circular reasoning, however, I think you missed my thread on the nature of why people generally use arguments of logical fallacies. ( Oh no, do I become guilty of the same?) Although, I must say there is a sense of irony that on a thread about unrighteous dominion someone throws the logical fallacy claim out as a means to obscure the discussion.

My last post on this thread should make it very clear to you my thoughts about such things.

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtop ... 90#p790467

Let me know your thoughts

[underdog]

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

Thank you for clarifying, Passionflower.

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness. Please be aware that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or the arm of flesh, as Nephi said. And obviously cursed is he / she who violates the very 1st of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Only Christ saves. Christ is the Light, not man. We should seek to align ourselves with HIM, and not with any man. Not even a true prophet would ever encourage others to align themselves with him. We must worship Christ and Christ alone. There's only one name under heaven whereby man is saved, and that's Christ. We must look unto Him in every thought, and doubt not and fear not. We must keep our eye single to His glory, recognizing that He is the keeper of the gate, employing no servant there.

I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any priesthood holder, ESP those who ask for you to be aligned with him "by virtue of the priesthood" (DC 121:41). Because no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. If I err in doctrine, please, I humbly ask to be corrected.

Underdog, what Passionflower said is exactly how the Saints of the church in the early days of the restoration understood. What you call 'gross idolatry and gross wickedness' was anything but that to the Saints--and you wouldn't have lasted a day in that church, because with an attitude like yours, --you wouldn't have gone to Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo, Council Bluffs or Salt Lake. You could not have lived the Law of Consecration, the united order etc. You wouldn't have gone to settle any of the difficult areas that early Saints settled and you wouldn't have left your family to serve a mission or lived Plural Marriage if asked to do so. Our ancestors in the church didn't consider it 'trusting in the arm of flesh' to submit to the priesthood authority of their leaders. The Sisters also understood and recognized that they were expected to submit to their husbands as their priesthood authority. I know it sounds old fashioned and I guess to you, offensive, but that's actually what they believed and some members still recognize it.

One thing this did is weed out the people who didn't have a strong testimony and conviction about what they were doing and the gospel they believed, and they, as a whole did some pretty incredible things, as a church and a people. I suspect we're going to need that level of trust in our Leaders, faithfulness in living the Gospel and willingness to submit to Heavenly Father's will as shared with us through his Servants, the Prophets if we are ever going to become a Zion people and build a New Jerusalem.

Also, whenever I hear people equate 'trusting in the arm of flesh' with sustaining and following our LDS church leaders, I worry they have fallen under the spell of Denver Snuffer. I sure hope you haven't made that mistake.

You said: Our ancestors in the church didn't consider it 'trusting in the arm of flesh' to submit to the priesthood authority of their leaders.

Me: Maybe not the Brighamites in post Joseph Smith Mormonism. But Joseph Smith did. Which era do you prefer to be associated with? Joseph translated and read the BoM. He knew the warnings contained therein. Joseph felt the people were depending too much on him. That's not what the Does the Lord want His people to do that? Should we depend on another man for salvation? It's a good question. Said Joseph: As found in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel – said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church – that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls – APPLIED IT TO THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS – SAID IF THE PEOPLE DEPARTED FROM THE LORD, THEY MUST FALL – THAT THEY WERE DEPENDING ON THE PROPHET, HENCE WERE DARKENED IN THEIR MINDS, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy."

Did you catch that? He encouraged spiritual self sufficiency ("each one should stand for himself"), decried depending "on no man" and specifically declared his contemporary saints were "depending on the [himself]" and "hence were darkened in their minds."

He also gave us this JST (which I must say how odd it is NEVER quoted in Church these days or in General Conference...hmmmm! I checked. It has NEVER been quoted in any General Conference talks searchable at www.lds.org. Strange? Why would this scripture be avoided like the plague?????) : "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another." See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst- ... l?lang=eng. What principle is the Lord teaching here? Should we trust in the Lord or in the Brethren? Why would this principle so clearly expressed by the Lord be avoided at all costs? Think about that. Could it be that it strikes at the very heart of the MAIN doctrine being incessantly declared by the Brethren? Some of you may be shocked this scripture is in your standard works, I'm guessing.

It looks like many of you here on this post are compelled (without Scriptural basis I might point out) to argue that "arm of flesh" is not man, and that we should trust man, that we should elevate man (the Brethren) to the level of trust that the Lord has. Think about this. I call this idolatry. The Lord calls it that. It is what it is.

I didn't ask my questions above with the expectation that I'd be surrounded by a few idolatrous Mormons who are militant about trying to put the Brethren on the pedestal with Christ. I'm surprised by your outburst.

I guess many of you think that the Stake President and bishop (in my post above) are not exercising unrighteous dominion? Is this correct? I'd like to hear your arguments.

What I am hearing from you all is that we must submit to MAN "by virtue of their priesthood". This is a virtue, you say!! Ironically the Lord says a few verses earlier (in DC 121) that priesthood is something they have LOST as soon as a priesthood holder/leader makes the argument YOU GUYS are making. You see, priesthood is LOST the very moment you quote having it to get your way.

Common denominator

It seems we ALL should agree at least on this scripture: ""Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost." You see, if you accept this verse as truth (it's pretty straightforward, isn't it?), then THE question becomes, "Is such and such precept given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?!! If you are simply asking, what did the Brethren say, then you are under the power of the Devil. But if you ask, Is what they said given by the power of the Holy Ghost," then you are doing as the Lord expects. This life is a test!

There should be debate. There should be discussion. There should be scrutiny. There should be pondering. There should be critical thinking. There should be prayerful consideration. There should be lessons given. There should be no censorship. There should be transparency. There should be tolerance. There should be a welcoming of ideas. There should be inspiration and revelation. There should be robust conversation...on any and all ideas presented by one of the Brethren or anybody else in the Church. Right? We should "prove all things."

Mormonism is truth. Man is fallible. If a man makes a statement...If one of the Brethren makes a statement, IT IS OUR OBLIGATION AND DUTY to vet it by asking, "Was this precept given by the power of the Holy Ghost?"

I say to you that it is idolatry to put blind trust in man. I think we are surely ALL saying that, yes? Or is there disagreement on that statement?

The Lord says you are CURSED if you put trust in man UNLESS what they say is given by the Holy Ghost. The Lord said, again, "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another."

I do believe it's patently unwise to have a goal to "align" yourself with the Brethren. The Chief Cornerstone of our foundation is Christ (see Eph 2:20). We must align ourselves with Christ. What is happening in the Church is that bad assumptions are being made by mass numbers of people. This foolishness has already become a central LDS tradition. Incorrect assumptions are dangerous. You know what the BoM says about the dangers of the tradition of men. The wicked Lamanites are repeatedly called out for putting their tradition over the Lord.

So just food for thought for my fellow few Mormon brothers and sisters here who have a core value/ core (incorrect) assumption to implicitly trust the Brethren...my suggestion would be to prove all things, to prayerfully consider if a precept mentioned by the Brethren is given by the Holy Ghost.

To spur you on to serious contemplation, I will go out on a limb and say that the precept now frequently taught by the Brethren to align ourselves with them is not only not given by the Holy Ghost, but that it is of the devil. It's priestcraft through and through. The assumption should not be that we should implicitly trust the Brethren, but that we should implicitly DISTRUST them. Why? Because of course man is fallible. Knowing man can err we should actually EXPECT to find untruths being taught by them. And we should be motivated to learn truth directly from the Lord, and to lean on Him.

We all do agree man (the Brethren) is fallible? We all should say YES, the Brethren are absolutely fallible, they are capable of making and saying errors, and therefore capable of leading men astray by teaching precepts that are not given by the Holy Ghost. If you are not deceived, you should be able to give at least a few examples of false precepts now being taught by the Brethren, or philosophies of men which are mingled with Scripture. If you can't, then that's a good sign your mind has become darkened. The Scriptures teach that only those who take the Holy Ghost to be their guide will not be deceived (DC 45:57)! It's important we hearken to this message because otherwise we will not "abide" His Second Coming. Wake up call to us all!

If we all agree to the obvious fact and unassailable truth that man / the Brethren are fallible, then I ask this: why try to align yourself with the Brethren? Why not skip that step altogether, and simply target Christ as the One you wish to align yourself with? Aren't we supposed to plug ourselves into the true vine anyway?

If I've misrepresented or misunderstood anything anybody has said here, please let me know, and allow me the opportunity to correct myself.

Sincerely,

Underdog

[underdog]

Thank you, Br. Lenox!

You said (That being me-Brock): Simply because a person is composed of flesh* is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

You said: Your entire commentary has the feel of a budding diatribe against the leaders of the church and "is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon".

Me: How? I'm saying we should follow Christ and align ourselves with Him. What do you disagree with about that?

You said: "I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any" one that does not understand Christ's means of governance through the priesthood and the officers that he has placed as legitimate spokespersons of his will.

Me: Who by name has the Lord specified as legitimate spokespeople or spokesperson? Scriptural reference please.

You said: "It is not a state of wickedness and idolatry to **respect those whom he has called to assist in guiding his children and to use them as part of the means he has ordained to teach correct principles, along with scripture and the Holy Ghost as guides."

Me: I agree. You are, for the second separate time (**straw man #2), ascribing a false statement to me and then attacking it. For somebody who describes themselves as smarter than most everyone else (you said in an above comment that you are able to "manipulate a situation to [your] own advantage because of "knowledge. From a young age , I learned that if I knew more than everyone else I could dominate in a majority of situations. I didn't have to demonstrate a single physically intimidating behavior but it was intimidation just the same."), I have high expectations that you would be accurate and I would hope be equally honest (esp since my comments can be seen on this very page). Building straw men (as you've done twice) is popular with folks who don't have a sound argument based on Scriptures. A straw man is a lie or misrepresentation ascribed to the person you disagree with. Then you attack the lie/misrepresentation. Actually, here's a 3rd party definition I just found: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." I invite you to stop the digression and to focus on the questions I have raised.

You said: "I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. Since you have erred in doctrine, I appreciate that you have asked "to be corrected."

Me: Certainly I haven't been offended. Please forgive me too, for having to publicly call out your dishonorable techniques designed to malign me, all the while avoiding the very questions I bring to light. Straw man arguments are purposely used to avoid the main topic, which makes the person uncomfortable and squirmy.

You said: "Arm of flesh" is a term to convey a particular state of being but it is not a state of being mortal that qualifies for a correct application of the terminology.

Me: Seems you're getting unnecessarily pedantic in your attempt to define something that is quite simple for the common man to understand. There's no need to insinuate that this is a tricky phrase to understand and you must pull out a scholar's dictionary to grasp. It's quite obvious what Nephi means when he says, "O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." Do you really have a problem with this meaning that we should trust the Lord and not man? Is this what you want to be contentious about? Do you really want to find yourself arguing to elevate man (the Brethren) to the level of the Lord? I can see this struck a nerve with you. By your response, I see that you were actually offended by me showing the mirror to Passionflower, because it's a mirror reflecting an unflattering truth to you. It is idolatry. I was guilty of it too. I was in your shoes not too long ago, my good brother.

Perhaps you will accept another similar quote from Nephi (from 2 Nephi 28), using the same phrase but with some clarity to ease your mind about my interpretation: "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost."

This verse does a good job of equating arm of flesh with trusting in man, don't you think?

And just to bring this discussion back to my original questions, in which I wanted to hear from fellow Mormons, here are my 3 questions which have gotten lost from someone's attempt to digress:

1) The stake president said, "If a man has righteous intentions, he CANNOT practice unrighteous dominion!" Do you agree or disagree, and why? Is this idea uttered by the SP "given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?

2) When a keys holder attempts to have their ideas or will adopted BECAUSE they have "authority" or the keys, is that unrighteous dominion? Is this idea uttered by the SP "given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?

3) Lastly, is there a point where unrighteous dominion becomes too great, and members should not tolerate it, so to speak? At what point should members in a ward say enough is enough and bring two witnesses forth to express their grievance to the stake president? Of course, it is assumed these two (or more) members will have already expressed their concerns directly to the bishop.

Whoa, hold on there cowboy. I seem to have stirred me up a rattlesnakes nest here.

Let's calmly step back, take off our boots, pop open a sarsaparilla and chew the fat fer a bit concerning a few of your observations of my observations.

Your first observation was stated in the following context:

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh* is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

My response was generated by the terminology you utilized in the following:

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?).

A careful reading on this terminology might be construed by a number of people where English is their first language to equating "submitting to men" and your parenthetical statement of "arm of flesh" as being related to each other. I certainly thought that was the case. The state of being "men" appears to be synonymous with being an "arm of flesh". From my perspective as a reader of your material that seems a distinct possibility. We should also step back one more post to make another correlation. That being the general observation to which you crafted your response above.

You inquired of Passionflower, who could never have known how much I love passionflowers having grown them several times here in Utah (caerulea and edulis being the only two cold hardy enough to have a chance), but I digress...you engaged her in the following exchange:

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

If we take the key thoughts of your responses then here is the gist of your converstion:

1.) Your point of focus from your original post to passionflower is this observation:

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

2.)If we tie this observation above with this observation - I am inclined to think we have some clarity:

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness.

3.) Seems a pretty clear association that you are responding to a specific individual at the least. But Clearly in your reasoning the President of the Church is to be equated with being a member of the subset of the population called "men" and that subset is further clarified to be members of a scripturally referenced negatively defined subset of "the arm of flesh"

Tying these thoughts together was adequately convincing to me that you are focusing on submission to the brethren as priesthood authorities as the equivalent of submitting to men who you equate with the (arm of flesh) and further more that one specific person in particular is intended to be the subject of your comments and that is the President of the Church. Thus this leads us to my comment to which you took a bit of umbrage:

Simply because a person is composed of flesh is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Thus my terminology of "a righteous person" is in reference to your comments of "The President of the Church" and "brethren" who clearly are those described in your statement of being men and the "arm of flesh" to your interpretation of things. Since it became apparent that you were using the term "arm of flesh" to describe righteous leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that is an impossibility, then clearly at that juncture it became evident that you did not understand the terminology of "arm of flesh".

Now due to the length of the effort necessary to address your concerns let's just go with one at a time. There are few more observations that could be inquired after in your response to me that is pertaining this section like why you first say:

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

To state that you agree with me and then say that I have provided a definition that you do not accept and then that I am attacking the definition that you agreed with is at best circular reasoning, however, I think you missed my thread on the nature of why people generally use arguments of logical fallacies. ( Oh no, do I become guilty of the same?) Although, I must say there is a sense of irony that on a thread about unrighteous dominion someone throws the logical fallacy claim out as a means to obscure the discussion.

My last post on this thread should make it very clear to you my thoughts about such things.

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtop ... 90#p790467

Let me know your thoughts

It's not circular reasoning when I said, "I agree with you." I had assumed you could piece it together. Let me do long hand versus short hand with an expectation you would understand. My long hand in parenthesis.

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh (this is your disingenuous straw man I exposed -- I never said this. YOU did.) is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? (I agree on this point with you, but this only contradicts the straw man you invented and ascribed to me.). By your logic it would appear so. (Because you attributed your definition above to me, you then conclude by saying that if that's my logic, then we shouldn't trust Jesus because he was tabernacled in flesh. But, again, that was never my logic in the first place, but your straw man....sorry for the long hand -- I thought it was obvious from the very beginning.)

I think you've been exposed doubly now. Because you're still arguing instead of conceding. You're doubling down which is unfortunate and exactly opposite the doctrine of Christ to become as a little child. The only doctrine you /me should concern ourselves with is becoming as a little child, after baptism by water and fire and continuing repentance (3 Nephi 11).

I'm happy to make concessions when a scriptural or even logical argument is made exposing my error. That's how I came into the Mormon Church many many years ago.

You would appreciate some good critical thinking instruction. I recommend www.nomorefakenews.com. Go there and buy the course "The Matrix Revealed." Your use of straw men is a very disingenuous tactic if used intentionally. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are just not clear in writing/thinking and had no intent to deceive readers or malign me. At best then, you've got flawed logic and to make it worse, can't see it when it's pointed out to you with precision. Or will you now take the opportunity to concede?

If you want to have a meaningful conversation with me, you must concede. I've quoted several scriptures which teach valuable truth. If you are unwilling to admit the principles contained in these previously-quoted scriptures, then there's no point in continuing.

If you don't agree with the principle of conceding when wrong then this can't be a productive, truth-learning experience. And I don't have unlimited time. Humility is required. As well as the ability to focus on the question at hand (i.e., not going off on straw men that you create to intentionally or unintentionally wander from the main point.). Before you know it, you've spent hours thrashing at the leaves, while leaving the tap root unaddressed.

[brlenox]

Whoa, hold on there cowboy. I seem to have stirred me up a rattlesnakes nest here.

Let's calmly step back, take off our boots, pop open a sarsaparilla and chew the fat fer a bit concerning a few of your observations of my observations.

Your first observation was stated in the following context:

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh* is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

My response was generated by the terminology you utilized in the following:

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?).

A careful reading on this terminology might be construed by a number of people where English is their first language to equating "submitting to men" and your parenthetical statement of "arm of flesh" as being related to each other. I certainly thought that was the case. The state of being "men" appears to be synonymous with being an "arm of flesh". From my perspective as a reader of your material that seems a distinct possibility. We should also step back one more post to make another correlation. That being the general observation to which you crafted your response above.

You inquired of Passionflower, who could never have known how much I love passionflowers having grown them several times here in Utah (caerulea and edulis being the only two cold hardy enough to have a chance), but I digress...you engaged her in the following exchange:

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

If we take the key thoughts of your responses then here is the gist of your converstion:

1.) Your point of focus from your original post to passionflower is this observation:

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

2.)If we tie this observation above with this observation - I am inclined to think we have some clarity:

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness.

3.) Seems a pretty clear association that you are responding to a specific individual at the least. But Clearly in your reasoning the President of the Church is to be equated with being a member of the subset of the population called "men" and that subset is further clarified to be members of a scripturally referenced negatively defined subset of "the arm of flesh"

Tying these thoughts together was adequately convincing to me that you are focusing on submission to the brethren as priesthood authorities as the equivalent of submitting to men who you equate with the (arm of flesh) and further more that one specific person in particular is intended to be the subject of your comments and that is the President of the Church. Thus this leads us to my comment to which you took a bit of umbrage:

Simply because a person is composed of flesh is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Thus my terminology of "a righteous person" is in reference to your comments of "The President of the Church" and "brethren" who clearly are those described in your statement of being men and the "arm of flesh" to your interpretation of things. Since it became apparent that you were using the term "arm of flesh" to describe righteous leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that is an impossibility, then clearly at that juncture it became evident that you did not understand the terminology of "arm of flesh".

Now due to the length of the effort necessary to address your concerns let's just go with one at a time. There are few more observations that could be inquired after in your response to me that is pertaining this section like why you first say:

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

To state that you agree with me and then say that I have provided a definition that you do not accept and then that I am attacking the definition that you agreed with is at best circular reasoning, however, I think you missed my thread on the nature of why people generally use arguments of logical fallacies. ( Oh no, do I become guilty of the same?) Although, I must say there is a sense of irony that on a thread about unrighteous dominion someone throws the logical fallacy claim out as a means to obscure the discussion.

My last post on this thread should make it very clear to you my thoughts about such things.

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtop ... 90#p790467

Let me know your thoughts

It's not circular reasoning when I said, "I agree with you." I had assumed you could piece it together. Let me do long hand versus short hand with an expectation you would understand. My long hand in parenthesis.

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh (this is your disingenuous straw man I exposed -- I never said this. YOU did.) is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so. (Because you attributed your definition above to me, you then conclude that if that's your logic, then we shouldn't trust Jesus because he was tabernacled in flesh.)

I think you've been exposed doubly now. Because you're still arguing instead of conceding. You're doubling down which is unfortunate and exactly opposite the doctrine of Christ to become as a little child. The only doctrine you /me should concern ourselves with is becoming as a little child, after baptism by water and fire and continuing repentance (3 Nephi 11).

I'm happy to make concessions when a scriptural or even logical argument is made exposing my error. That's how I came into the Mormon Church many many years ago.

You would appreciate some good critical thinking instruction. I recommend www.nomorefakenews.com. Go there and buy the course "The Matrix Revealed." Your use of straw men is a very disingenuous tactic if used intentionally. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are just not clear in writing/thinking and had no intent to deceive readers or malign me. At best then, you've got flawed logic and to make it worse, can't see it when it's pointed out to you with precision. Or will you now take the opportunity to concede?

If you want to have a meaningful conversation with me, you must concede. I've quoted several scriptures which teach valuable truth. If you are unwilling to admit the principles contained in these previously-quoted scriptures, then there's no point in continuing.

If you don't agree with the principle of conceding when wrong then this can't be a productive, truth-learning experience. And I don't have unlimited time. Humility is required. As well as the ability to focus on the question at hand (i.e., not going off on straw men that you create to intentionally or unintentionally wander from the main point.). Before you know it, you've spent hours thrashing at the leaves, while leaving the tap root unaddressed.

Oh my...you didn't even respond to my post. Please take another gander where I explain in great detail why I interpreted your commentary in the fashion I did. This was done as an act of genuine communication. I think I did okay at putting together and you skipped the entire piece and went only for the last paragraph. Did you read anything above that? If you wish to exchange understandings I think we can if you wish...up to you.

[underdog]

Whoa, hold on there cowboy. I seem to have stirred me up a rattlesnakes nest here.

Let's calmly step back, take off our boots, pop open a sarsaparilla and chew the fat fer a bit concerning a few of your observations of my observations.

Your first observation was stated in the following context:

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh* is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

My response was generated by the terminology you utilized in the following:

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?).

A careful reading on this terminology might be construed by a number of people where English is their first language to equating "submitting to men" and your parenthetical statement of "arm of flesh" as being related to each other. I certainly thought that was the case. The state of being "men" appears to be synonymous with being an "arm of flesh". From my perspective as a reader of your material that seems a distinct possibility. We should also step back one more post to make another correlation. That being the general observation to which you crafted your response above.

You inquired of Passionflower, who could never have known how much I love passionflowers having grown them several times here in Utah (caerulea and edulis being the only two cold hardy enough to have a chance), but I digress...you engaged her in the following exchange:

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

If we take the key thoughts of your responses then here is the gist of your converstion:

1.) Your point of focus from your original post to passionflower is this observation:

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

2.)If we tie this observation above with this observation - I am inclined to think we have some clarity:

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness.

3.) Seems a pretty clear association that you are responding to a specific individual at the least. But Clearly in your reasoning the President of the Church is to be equated with being a member of the subset of the population called "men" and that subset is further clarified to be members of a scripturally referenced negatively defined subset of "the arm of flesh"

Tying these thoughts together was adequately convincing to me that you are focusing on submission to the brethren as priesthood authorities as the equivalent of submitting to men who you equate with the (arm of flesh) and further more that one specific person in particular is intended to be the subject of your comments and that is the President of the Church. Thus this leads us to my comment to which you took a bit of umbrage:

Simply because a person is composed of flesh is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so.

Thus my terminology of "a righteous person" is in reference to your comments of "The President of the Church" and "brethren" who clearly are those described in your statement of being men and the "arm of flesh" to your interpretation of things. Since it became apparent that you were using the term "arm of flesh" to describe righteous leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that is an impossibility, then clearly at that juncture it became evident that you did not understand the terminology of "arm of flesh".

Now due to the length of the effort necessary to address your concerns let's just go with one at a time. There are few more observations that could be inquired after in your response to me that is pertaining this section like why you first say:

Me: I agree with you. But no point in ascribing a definition I don't accept and then attacking that definition (*straw man #1). Do you really have a disagreement on what 'arm of flesh' is? Surely this is not worth debating.

To state that you agree with me and then say that I have provided a definition that you do not accept and then that I am attacking the definition that you agreed with is at best circular reasoning, however, I think you missed my thread on the nature of why people generally use arguments of logical fallacies. ( Oh no, do I become guilty of the same?) Although, I must say there is a sense of irony that on a thread about unrighteous dominion someone throws the logical fallacy claim out as a means to obscure the discussion.

My last post on this thread should make it very clear to you my thoughts about such things.

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtop ... 90#p790467

Let me know your thoughts

It's not circular reasoning when I said, "I agree with you." I had assumed you could piece it together. Let me do long hand versus short hand with an expectation you would understand. My long hand in parenthesis.

You said: Simply because a person is composed of flesh (this is your disingenuous straw man I exposed -- I never said this. YOU did.) is an inadequate state to reference a righteous person guided by the Holy Ghost as having an Arm of Flesh. There was a day when Christ possessed a tabernacle of flesh and blood. Was he unreliable as a being to trust simply because he possessed an "arm of flesh"? By your logic it would appear so. (Because you attributed your definition above to me, you then conclude that if that's your logic, then we shouldn't trust Jesus because he was tabernacled in flesh.)

I think you've been exposed doubly now. Because you're still arguing instead of conceding. You're doubling down which is unfortunate and exactly opposite the doctrine of Christ to become as a little child. The only doctrine you /me should concern ourselves with is becoming as a little child, after baptism by water and fire and continuing repentance (3 Nephi 11).

I'm happy to make concessions when a scriptural or even logical argument is made exposing my error. That's how I came into the Mormon Church many many years ago.

You would appreciate some good critical thinking instruction. I recommend www.nomorefakenews.com. Go there and buy the course "The Matrix Revealed." Your use of straw men is a very disingenuous tactic if used intentionally. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are just not clear in writing/thinking and had no intent to deceive readers or malign me. At best then, you've got flawed logic and to make it worse, can't see it when it's pointed out to you with precision. Or will you now take the opportunity to concede?

If you want to have a meaningful conversation with me, you must concede. I've quoted several scriptures which teach valuable truth. If you are unwilling to admit the principles contained in these previously-quoted scriptures, then there's no point in continuing.

If you don't agree with the principle of conceding when wrong then this can't be a productive, truth-learning experience. And I don't have unlimited time. Humility is required. As well as the ability to focus on the question at hand (i.e., not going off on straw men that you create to intentionally or unintentionally wander from the main point.). Before you know it, you've spent hours thrashing at the leaves, while leaving the tap root unaddressed.

Oh my...you didn't even respond to my post. Please take another gander where I explain in great detail why I interpreted your commentary in the fashion I did. This was done as an act of genuine communication. I think I did okay at putting together and you skipped the entire piece and went only for the last paragraph. Did you read anything above that? If you wish to exchange understandings I think we can if you wish...up to you.

I apologize if I missed it. Trying to multi task with cooking dinner and working. I'll have to look at it a bit later. Thanks for your patience.

[brlenox]

Oh my...you didn't even respond to my post. Please take another gander where I explain in great detail why I interpreted your commentary in the fashion I did. This was done as an act of genuine communication. I think I did okay at putting together and you skipped the entire piece and went only for the last paragraph. Did you read anything above that? If you wish to exchange understandings I think we can if you wish...up to you.

I apologize if I missed it. Trying to multi task with cooking dinner and working. I'll have to look at it a bit later. Thanks for your patience.

Not a problem ... at your convenience.

[Teancum]

This has been an instructive thread for me specifically in the observations of how different people think about authority and submission, agency, leadership, and the like....

I understand that many of us have had experiences that were less than perfect. Everyone that has had experiences with me have had to deal with imperfect experiences.

Having said that, isn't it really neat that God gives us so much practice time to learn to forgive, to be tolerant, to become patient, to find love for an imperfect person, to teach us how to be obedient, submissive, sustaining, and ultimately learn to give our all to God? How can we learn to do those things to / for God if we haven't learned to do them to / for others?

God is the Ultimate authority figure. If we cannot be led, taught, or counseled by a priesthood leader now, how can we ever develop that trait in eternity? This then becomes the question, will we react like Lucifer did, or will we react as Jesus did? Jesus did sustain His Father by accepting His plan and by offering to help / do what was needed, however unpleasant. I don't think that I need to spell out how Satan behaved, but to put it briefly, did not go along with the plan, nor sustained our Father in Heaven. The one thing I notice some similarities with Satan is that he became bitter about it.
Cant go nowhere good with that!

So, if you have a challenging leader over you, I suggest its a great time to practice forgiveness and to figure out how to sustain them and make them be a more successful leader.

[passionflower]

"Unrighteous dominion" as found in the scriptures is instruction on how a Priesthood holder should avoid using his Priesthood authority in a way that is personally aggrandizing or in a manner that excuses sin , and is not referring to otherwise obnoxious behaviours or poor personality traits of random church members, or the way someone treats others in general.

The verses in section 121 that preface vs 37 are these: "Behold there are many called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson----That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness"

In these verses, Joseph Smith is describing the way "priesthood" is "held" in the various protestant denominations around them, and how this is not acceptable in the Kingdom of God.

Vs 37 goes on to say, "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man."

In these scriptures, JS is not finding fault with church members in general, but is being specific to the Priesthood. For instance, a baptist minister could commit adultery, and still consider himself "called of God" and fully able to baptize, preach to his congregation, etc. And certainly aggrandizing himself was what his "calling" was all about. Most, if not all of the persecution waged against the Latter Day Saints in Missouri was sparked by Protestant preachers, who, back then, as the most influential leaders of their communities, who, in the name of God, can truly be described as using an unrighteous control and dominion over others, in working their fellow citizens up to drive the Mormons out of MIssouri(whom these preachers saw as competitors). Today, a cathoiic priest maintains his priesthood even if a child molester, with other christian denominations condoning the ordination of openly gay priests. And I don't think I have to talk about leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who, in the name of God, sanction the destruction of property, murder of civilians, and a most destructive idealogie, or in other words exemplifying the complete opposite of charity, and all in the name of God ( or Allah ).

Joseph Smith had a real bee in his bonnet when it came to anything sectarian finding it's way into the restored church. And he wasn't entirely successful. I still find many beliefs and behaviours church members think is "gospel" that really stem from the influence of the catholic and protestant worlds.

These vs in section 121 deal with much more serious behaviour on the part of a Priesthood holder than a manifestation of poor personality traits or the venting of frustration by bullying, or not giving his wife or children enough personal freedom or respect. These are problems, yes, but they are not what these scriptures are talking about.

They do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren."

Yes, having to work with somebody who is bossy, controlling, dominating and vents their frustrations in life through bullying and treating others as non people, IS a really really bad problem, and it is becoming worse and worse everyday. But this is not what section 121 is talking about.

IMO, among the problems holding back the progress of the church is poor social skills among the members, lack of personal self awareness, feelings of inferiority. with just a plain lack of social standards, expectations, and manners of propriety that are strictly upheld. Too many people are sort of "doing their own thing" when it comes to the treatment of others ( which usually arises from a neglected upbringing ) instead of submitting themselves as a whole to something higher. (Rules on forum, for instance, that everyone has to agree to before joining, create order and peace ) And unfortunately, leadership positions on the ward and stake level tend to go to a bossy person with an "I am the only one who knows how to the job right" mentality, and not someone with true leadership ability( because such a person is very rare ).

Passionflower, what did you mean by:

"[The DC 121 verses] do tell a Priesthood holder that submitting to the Priesthood authority over him comes first and foremost in his life, and his conduct relating thereto.
Anyone trying to be a Priesthood maverick in this church will lose his Priesthood. Women often complain that they don't want to submit to their husband, but the men have to submit, too. Indeed everyone in the church has to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, otherwise known as "sustaining the brethren.""

Sounds like you're saying that those verses tell us, above all else, to submit to our local priesthood authority, is that correct? You're saying that true Mormons SHOULD submit to the Brethren, is that right?

I want to make sure you're not being sarcastic, but you are instead being dead serious, so could you clarify please?

Thank you!

Please don't think that my interpretion of section 121 is suggesting everyone possess a passionate fanatical devotion and zeal to any particular GA, or treat the Apostles like rockstars. This would be taking the subject of submission to Priesthood Authority to an extreme, which is also a religious mode of being coming from catholicism-protestantism, that JS did not want to take root in the church, either. You can't truly submit yourself to your Priesthood authority or to the Lord, unless you first have bridled all your passions.

There is a natural, normal, good wholesome way to follow the prophet in a manner that brings the best out of both the follower and the leader, the teacher and the learner, the servant and the one being served, wherein both are edified together and rejoice.

I just asked my DH what he thought of when he thought of Priesthood submission.

He quickly stated, "Whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

[brlenox]

We all do agree man (the Brethren) is fallible? We all should say YES, the Brethren are absolutely fallible, they are capable of making and saying errors, and therefore capable of leading men astray by teaching precepts that are not given by the Holy Ghost. If you are not deceived, you should be able to give at least a few examples of false precepts now being taught by the Brethren, or philosophies of men which are mingled with Scripture. If you can't, then that's a good sign your mind has become darkened. The Scriptures teach that only those who take the Holy Ghost to be their guide will not be deceived (DC 45:57)! It's important we hearken to this message because otherwise we will not "abide" His Second Coming. Wake up call to us all!

If we all agree to the obvious fact and unassailable truth that man / the Brethren are fallible, then I ask this: why try to align yourself with the Brethren? Why not skip that step altogether, and simply target Christ as the One you wish to align yourself with? Aren't we supposed to plug ourselves into the true vine anyway?

Underdog

You know what would be helpful in this discussion is one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray. Or where they have exercised unrighteous dominion and mandated in an inappropriate close the windows of heaven sort of fashion. Has this ever occurred? I'm not talking where one or two such as Mathias Cowley and John Taylor go off on a tangent in the early church but a situation like this where the body of the brethren were in agreement and led the church as an institution astray. Maybe you could illuminate a couple of incorrect doctrines or philosophies of men. Is there such an example?

[RAB]

Admittedly, I have not been a part of all of these conversations, but I thought I would add a few thoughts. I don't believe the bretheren want blind obedience. I believe that those who truly have a testimony and witness that this is God's true Church and are led by men inspired by God will naturally want to follow what they say. That isn't to say one is trusting in the arm of flesh. I make it a habit when a new prophet is called to seek revelation by the Holy Ghost confirming that he is the true prophet of the Church...mostly so that I can bear testimony of it.

There are Church leaders at a lower level, where I have seen them perhaps institute what might otherwise be commandments unto themselves on their whole stewardship. For example, one Stake President told his Stake to stay in their Sunday clothes all Sunday, to better worship the sabbath. Luckily I was not a part of that Stake, because that would just make me grouchy. However, for other people, it probably does help. So that Stake President may have been inspired for His Stake to say that...or He may have just been imparting advice for those whom it would help. Commandments unto ourselves that help bless our lives are a promise of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Spirit can inspire us how to better change, or it can inspire our leaders to challenge us in ways that will help us to better change. Whatever medium the Lord uses, whether directly or through His servants, I don't believe it is trusting in the arm of flesh, but rather believing the Lord when He says he has called His servants.

Remember a very important part of the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood in Section 84 is receiving His servants:

"35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father."

I believe what Joseph Smith was saying is that people should not solely be seeking their direction from the Bretheren, and himself as prophet. They should get much of their direction for their personal lives from the Lord directly, as the Holy Ghost will tell us "all things which are expedient"...in other words, everything that we, in our individual micro-plan of salvation need to do in accordance with our individual weaknesses and in accordance with how we might help those in our spheres of influence. The Bretheren speak to the Church at large, but there are many more individual lessons that we each need to learn that will be taught to us by the Holy Ghost as we seek it. I have never come across a situation where something the Holy Ghost told me to do contradicted something the Bretheren were advising, so I don't think it is a particularly useful exercise to hypothesize about what I would do.

[underdog]

We all do agree man (the Brethren) is fallible? We all should say YES, the Brethren are absolutely fallible, they are capable of making and saying errors, and therefore capable of leading men astray by teaching precepts that are not given by the Holy Ghost. If you are not deceived, you should be able to give at least a few examples of false precepts now being taught by the Brethren, or philosophies of men which are mingled with Scripture. If you can't, then that's a good sign your mind has become darkened. The Scriptures teach that only those who take the Holy Ghost to be their guide will not be deceived (DC 45:57)! It's important we hearken to this message because otherwise we will not "abide" His Second Coming. Wake up call to us all!

If we all agree to the obvious fact and unassailable truth that man / the Brethren are fallible, then I ask this: why try to align yourself with the Brethren? Why not skip that step altogether, and simply target Christ as the One you wish to align yourself with? Aren't we supposed to plug ourselves into the true vine anyway?

Underdog

You know what would be helpful in this discussion is one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray. Or where they have exercised unrighteous dominion and mandated in an inappropriate close the windows of heaven sort of fashion. Has this ever occurred? I'm not talking where one or two such as Mathias Cowley and John Taylor go off on a tangent in the early church but a situation like this where the body of the brethren were in agreement and led the church as an institution astray. Is there such an example?

Let me say that I don't think it's apostasy in any shape or form to question if a given precept taught by the Brethren or any member or any non member was given by the power of the Holy Ghost. In fact, it is most assuredly our duty to discern. That's the very test of life. To see if we will do all things the Lord commands us. The Lord warns us, as good missionaries teach investigators, that there will be a need to discern between those who look like sheep, but are in fact wolves. That's a graphic analogy, but it's the Lord's.

LET US PAUSE BEFORE PROCEEDING: Do we agree that it's not apostasy to "prove all things"? Do we agree it's not apostasy to scrutinize any given precept or philosophy till we feel certain it's given of the Holy Ghost?

I assume we all do agree, but I fear that there are many members (leaders and non leaders) who have been conditioned to believe that it IS at least bordering on apostasy to privately question a certain teaching, much less do it publicly. Many of our minds have been conditioned to not question, but to unthinkingly and to blindly follow the Brethren. Many of our minds have been conditioned to ASSUME there is nothing to question, but to trust the Brethren absolutely because, well, they are incapable of leading us astray even if they wanted to.

I fear the percentage of such deceived members is way up in the double digits. 10% would horrific. Anything over 50% would be devastating, and represent a Satanic coup over the minds of members of monumental dimensions. No point in debating how many members are under this spell, but I'm guessing it is quite high, at least 10% and likely much, much higher.

But seriously, I do want to pause and see if my good brothers and sisters here in this Freedom Forum believe that it's not apostasy to judge/discern/question/ponder/prayerfully consider/discuss ANY and ALL precepts taught by the Brethren to determine if they were given by the Holy Ghost or not. Agreed?

Would anybody here boldly dare to say that it IS an act of apostasy to attempt to discern the truthfulness or falseness of a given precept? If you're under the spell or influence of a lying spirit, then you probably right now want to say it is an act of apostasy to question precepts taught by the Brethren, and yet, you aren't able to justify your reasoning by using common sense, reason, or scripture. If you can make justifications, please share.

Now, to the question raised: I will offer one "doctrinal" example where the brethren have as a body led us astray. I've looked at this from every angle that I can think of. It is the part of OD1 that was added in 1981. The part where he says the leader can't lead the church astray. It was 1981 that Pres. Wilford Woodruff's personal opinions were added to our canon of Scripture. That would have been during Pres. Kimball's time as president, along with many men whom I regard as great men of God.

I've went back to 1981 and looked carefully at the two General Conferences that year. It's all available at www.lds.org. No announcement or even slightest reference was made of the additions. There was no vote, no sustaining, no discussion whatsoever. The excerpts from the early 1890's were just quietly slipped in and never talked about over the pulpit. Then the new scriptures were printed, sold, and shipped out to the members. It was like a small cancer was intentionally and secretly added to a healthy body. The body goes on living, not knowing of the cancer growing within.

Well, it has grown, and metastasized and now could be past the point of being able to be cured. I don't know. That's why the Lord through Joseph Smith restored some plain and precious truths lost from Mark 9. The King James Committee really butchered that chapter. It's very likely that if you're reading this, you are not aware (and why should you be since you've never heard JST Mark 9 taught in GC or in Sunday School or Seminary) of one of the most important things Jesus ever taught on the importance of discernment and sacrifice, even when the sacrifice requires drastic actions that are very painful if not impossible for most people to contemplate, much less carry out.

JST Mark 9 in our own very scriptures has this introduction: "Cutting off an offending hand or foot is compared to eliminating associations which may lead one astray. (compare Mark 9: 43-48)". When you read the 9 short verses, you notice a mini chiasmus:

1) Body parts (church body/members -- hand and foot) "offend" by not being of Christ, and are "cut off" to save one's own soul from hell.
2) Then the centerpiece of the message is stated, "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another. Seek unto my Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive."
3) Then back to body parts, by mentioning "the eye", defined as "him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light" which needs to be plucked out.

The one idea that is repeated FIVE times in nine verses is that it's better to enter into eternal life then go to hell with those who apostatize against the Gospel.

The challenge is twofold: to discern truth from error, and then to have the courage to sacrifice loved ones if need be, for he that loveth others more than Christ are not worthy of Christ. It's not so much people, in my mind, as letting go of false traditions.

Which leads us back to the one example I submit could be the #1 reason the LDS Church membership rots from within and completely apostatizes like has happened in every other dispensation not led by Enoch or Melchizedek where the people became Zion and were ultimately translated (also note what Zenos' allegory says about what would happen to us in Jacob 5). That #1 reason is the secret, quiet insertion of the pernicious, devilish idea that man cannot lead us astray. The qualifier of 2 Nephi 28:31 is not mentioned by Pres Woodruf. He said "it's not in the programme of the Lord" to allow leaders to lead the Church astray." This is utterly false and wicked and without scriptural support and in fact, dozens of Scriptures teach otherwise. Despite the complete lack of Scriptural support, this anti Christ doctrine was included in our Scriptures in the dark of night (no announcement, no vote).

After much searching, I finally found an October 1981 Ensign article which gives a slight reference to Pres Woodruff's added opinions. See https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the- ... n?lang=eng. That article from a guy named Bruce Harper who was serving as an admin assistant in the Church Missionary Dept, says this about the devilish addition: "The new additions to the text are...excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto..." That's it!! Nothing in General Conference. If you were trying to cover it up and do your level best to conceal the addition of this cancer from Church membership, I guess this is how you'd do it. Now you can point to an obscure Ensign article in which some bureaucrat vaguely mentions the additions in passing.

There was an attempt in this Harper-written article to help members feel good about the changes: Quoting Elder McConkie: "Every correction was approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Brethren felt good about each of them." And the concluding remark of Elder Packer, "Everything that could be done has been done to help open the scriptures to members so that they might know the gospel of Jesus Christ."

But there was never any discussion or formal or informal explanation as to why this false "doctrine" was added to our cannon, and there was never a sustaining vote. We're not sure WHO proposed these excerpts of Woodruff's opinions be added, but can we agree that it's highly likely that members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were aware of and approved of the additions.

If some members of the Twelve were not informed, but intentionally kept in the dark (which I admit could be possible), then we would have a whole other problem: we'd have a conspiracy to deceive such members of the Twelve by other members of the Twelve. But I believe this is not likely, because eventually ALL members of the Twelve would have heard of or read the Woodruff excerpts and they ALL would have had the opportunity to publicly denounce such dangerous dogma. But we have no record of such denouncements so we are left to conclude that they approve "as a body".

So to summarize, "one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray" would be consciously and secretly adding the excerpts to our canon in 1981 and never objecting to these additions since. I believe this one stunning victory in 1981 by Satan gave him a beachhead, and now after almost 40 years, he's been able to pollute and confuse and darken the minds of many leaders and many members so the result is that many leaders think they are impervious to any serious attack from Satan (saying stuff like, "Oh well, even if I am wrong, there's no real damage...the work will go on...no consequence...nobody will be led astray..."), and the members believe they can and should implicitly trust their local authorities, because as Passionflower said just above in her incorrect assumption, "whether spoken by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." The false assumption that's now rampant is that the Brethren are true servants who can't lead us astray. I believe we can trace the cause of such a false assumption to 1981, when the excerpts were added to OD1.

The antidote to such a foolish, anti Christ teaching is to take the Holy Ghost to be our guide (DC 45) and to carefully and prayerfully consider if precepts are given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Of course, we should also always be measuring any and all precepts against the revealed word of God in Scripture because God is an unchangeable God.

[AI2.0]

Thank you for asking me. No I am not being sarcastic. And when it comes to the Priesthood, I couldn't be more dead serious. English is not my first language, and sometimes I must not get it quite right. Right?

Submitting to Priesthood authority is a very hard thing to do sometimes. I have read a really good written essay on this by Orson Pratt after he had to renounce "The Seer" ( or at least some parts of it ). It is so moving to hear his reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized. Bruce R McConkie had to take back several things from his original Mormon Doctrine. When his own father in law( Joseph F Smith ) told him off about it, he took the beating like a man, and made the changes he was told to make.

Thank you for clarifying, Passionflower.

You certainly did speak clearly when you said this, "It is so moving to hear [Orson Pratt's] reasons for being "one" with the President of the Church and in harmony with him, that I think it should be cannonized."

I believe this line of thinking -- of submitting to men (arm of flesh) or attempting to be "one" with man -- is deeply disturbing to hear from a fellow Mormon (I assume you're a fellow Mormon?). With all due respect to you, and I truly say this with love for you, but this line of thinking is gross idolatry and gross wickedness. Please be aware that cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or the arm of flesh, as Nephi said. And obviously cursed is he / she who violates the very 1st of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Only Christ saves. Christ is the Light, not man. We should seek to align ourselves with HIM, and not with any man. Not even a true prophet would ever encourage others to align themselves with him. We must worship Christ and Christ alone. There's only one name under heaven whereby man is saved, and that's Christ. We must look unto Him in every thought, and doubt not and fear not. We must keep our eye single to His glory, recognizing that He is the keeper of the gate, employing no servant there.

I hope you see the inherent danger in trying to align yourself with any priesthood holder, ESP those who ask for you to be aligned with him "by virtue of the priesthood" (DC 121:41). Because no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

I hope I have not offended you. If so, please forgive me. If I err in doctrine, please, I humbly ask to be corrected.

Underdog, what Passionflower said is exactly how the Saints of the church in the early days of the restoration understood. What you call 'gross idolatry and gross wickedness' was anything but that to the Saints--and you wouldn't have lasted a day in that church, because with an attitude like yours, --you wouldn't have gone to Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo, Council Bluffs or Salt Lake. You could not have lived the Law of Consecration, the united order etc. You wouldn't have gone to settle any of the difficult areas that early Saints settled and you wouldn't have left your family to serve a mission or lived Plural Marriage if asked to do so. Our ancestors in the church didn't consider it 'trusting in the arm of flesh' to submit to the priesthood authority of their leaders. The Sisters also understood and recognized that they were expected to submit to their husbands as their priesthood authority. I know it sounds old fashioned and I guess to you, offensive, but that's actually what they believed and some members still recognize it.

One thing this did is weed out the people who didn't have a strong testimony and conviction about what they were doing and the gospel they believed, and they, as a whole did some pretty incredible things, as a church and a people. I suspect we're going to need that level of trust in our Leaders, faithfulness in living the Gospel and willingness to submit to Heavenly Father's will as shared with us through his Servants, the Prophets if we are ever going to become a Zion people and build a New Jerusalem.

Also, whenever I hear people equate 'trusting in the arm of flesh' with sustaining and following our LDS church leaders, I worry they have fallen under the spell of Denver Snuffer. I sure hope you haven't made that mistake.

You said: Our ancestors in the church didn't consider it 'trusting in the arm of flesh' to submit to the priesthood authority of their leaders.

Me: Maybe not the Brighamites in post Joseph Smith Mormonism. But Joseph Smith did. Which era do you prefer to be associated with? Joseph translated and read the BoM. He knew the warnings contained therein. Joseph felt the people were depending too much on him. That's not what the Does the Lord want His people to do that? Should we depend on another man for salvation? It's a good question. Said Joseph: As found in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel – said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church – that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls – APPLIED IT TO THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS – SAID IF THE PEOPLE DEPARTED FROM THE LORD, THEY MUST FALL – THAT THEY WERE DEPENDING ON THE PROPHET, HENCE WERE DARKENED IN THEIR MINDS, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy."

Did you catch that? He encouraged spiritual self sufficiency ("each one should stand for himself"), decried depending "on no man" and specifically declared his contemporary saints were "depending on the [himself]" and "hence were darkened in their minds."

He also gave us this JST (which I must say how odd it is NEVER quoted in Church these days or in General Conference...hmmmm! I checked. It has NEVER been quoted in any General Conference talks searchable at www.lds.org. Strange? Why would this scripture be avoided like the plague?????) : "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another." See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst- ... l?lang=eng. What principle is the Lord teaching here? Should we trust in the Lord or in the Brethren? Why would this principle so clearly expressed by the Lord be avoided at all costs? Think about that. Could it be that it strikes at the very heart of the MAIN doctrine being incessantly declared by the Brethren? Some of you may be shocked this scripture is in your standard works, I'm guessing.

It looks like many of you here on this post are compelled (without Scriptural basis I might point out) to argue that "arm of flesh" is not man, and that we should trust man, that we should elevate man (the Brethren) to the level of trust that the Lord has. Think about this. I call this idolatry. The Lord calls it that. It is what it is.

I didn't ask my questions above with the expectation that I'd be surrounded by a few idolatrous Mormons who are militant about trying to put the Brethren on the pedestal with Christ. I'm surprised by your outburst.

I guess many of you think that the Stake President and bishop (in my post above) are not exercising unrighteous dominion? Is this correct? I'd like to hear your arguments.

What I am hearing from you all is that we must submit to MAN "by virtue of their priesthood". This is a virtue, you say!! Ironically the Lord says a few verses earlier (in DC 121) that priesthood is something they have LOST as soon as a priesthood holder/leader makes the argument YOU GUYS are making. You see, priesthood is LOST the very moment you quote having it to get your way.

Common denominator

It seems we ALL should agree at least on this scripture: ""Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost." You see, if you accept this verse as truth (it's pretty straightforward, isn't it?), then THE question becomes, "Is such and such precept given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?!! If you are simply asking, what did the Brethren say, then you are under the power of the Devil. But if you ask, Is what they said given by the power of the Holy Ghost," then you are doing as the Lord expects. This life is a test!

There should be debate. There should be discussion. There should be scrutiny. There should be pondering. There should be critical thinking. There should be prayerful consideration. There should be lessons given. There should be no censorship. There should be transparency. There should be tolerance. There should be a welcoming of ideas. There should be inspiration and revelation. There should be robust conversation...on any and all ideas presented by one of the Brethren or anybody else in the Church. Right? We should "prove all things."

Mormonism is truth. Man is fallible. If a man makes a statement...If one of the Brethren makes a statement, IT IS OUR OBLIGATION AND DUTY to vet it by asking, "Was this precept given by the power of the Holy Ghost?"

I say to you that it is idolatry to put blind trust in man. I think we are surely ALL saying that, yes? Or is there disagreement on that statement?

The Lord says you are CURSED if you put trust in man UNLESS what they say is given by the Holy Ghost. The Lord said, again, "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another."

I do believe it's patently unwise to have a goal to "align" yourself with the Brethren. The Chief Cornerstone of our foundation is Christ (see Eph 2:20). We must align ourselves with Christ. What is happening in the Church is that bad assumptions are being made by mass numbers of people. This foolishness has already become a central LDS tradition. Incorrect assumptions are dangerous. You know what the BoM says about the dangers of the tradition of men. The wicked Lamanites are repeatedly called out for putting their tradition over the Lord.

So just food for thought for my fellow few Mormon brothers and sisters here who have a core value/ core (incorrect) assumption to implicitly trust the Brethren...my suggestion would be to prove all things, to prayerfully consider if a precept mentioned by the Brethren is given by the Holy Ghost.

To spur you on to serious contemplation, I will go out on a limb and say that the precept now frequently taught by the Brethren to align ourselves with them is not only not given by the Holy Ghost, but that it is of the devil. It's priestcraft through and through. The assumption should not be that we should implicitly trust the Brethren, but that we should implicitly DISTRUST them. Why? Because of course man is fallible. Knowing man can err we should actually EXPECT to find untruths being taught by them. And we should be motivated to learn truth directly from the Lord, and to lean on Him.

We all do agree man (the Brethren) is fallible? We all should say YES, the Brethren are absolutely fallible, they are capable of making and saying errors, and therefore capable of leading men astray by teaching precepts that are not given by the Holy Ghost. If you are not deceived, you should be able to give at least a few examples of false precepts now being taught by the Brethren, or philosophies of men which are mingled with Scripture. If you can't, then that's a good sign your mind has become darkened. The Scriptures teach that only those who take the Holy Ghost to be their guide will not be deceived (DC 45:57)! It's important we hearken to this message because otherwise we will not "abide" His Second Coming. Wake up call to us all!

If we all agree to the obvious fact and unassailable truth that man / the Brethren are fallible, then I ask this: why try to align yourself with the Brethren? Why not skip that step altogether, and simply target Christ as the One you wish to align yourself with? Aren't we supposed to plug ourselves into the true vine anyway?

If I've misrepresented or misunderstood anything anybody has said here, please let me know, and allow me the opportunity to correct myself.

Sincerely,

Underdog

I took a little time to read your past posts, and so I know that arguing with you on this would be futile, so I won't go through this point by point.

Let's put away the pretense, it seems you've already rejected LDS church leadership so this isn't something to wonder about and it's best to argue this from this position.

You are right, 'man' is fallible, church leaders are fallible, and putting blind faith (or as you said 'implicitly trust) in leaders is a big mistake, which some people make, but not all of us (you need to be careful of projecting onto others your own struggles)--and yet, our Father in Heaven has set up a church where we are REQUIRED to put some trust in and sustain those he's called to lead us. But, he didn't leave us defenseless, as was pointed out earlier, Pres. Benson reminded us that we have three things to help us--which work together. 1. The scriptures, 2. Living Prophets and 3. The Holy Ghost. You can't dismiss one of these and still be safe from being led astray, if you do, you may likely wake up one day to find you've been deceived.

I think you understand the need for 'true messengers', your problem is that you are not able to recognize who is 'true' and who is 'false'. But since we both accept the Book of Mormon, let me point out one of several references to this concept found in the book.

After some disruptive wars, the church needed to be reestablished and organized;

Alma 45:23

'..Helaman and his brethren had appointed priests and teachers over the church that there arose a dissension among them, and they would not give heed to the words of Helaman and his brethren;
But they grew proud, being lifted up in their hearts, because of their exceedingly great riches; therefore they grew in their own eyes, and would not give heed to their words, to walk uprightly before God."

These Nephites' problem was their riches. I think for some these days, it's not their worldly riches, but their rich intellect and knowledge. They think they are so much smarter than everyone else, it makes them proud and causes them to 'not give heed to' the words of those who've been called to serve them as 'teachers and priests'--in other words, their Church leaders.

Simply put, the Book of Mormon, if read carefully and sincerely, will not ALLOW you to ignore the need for a church organization, led through priesthood authority, by inspiration--which will be received by duly called 'true' messengers from God. That was always the plan and it still is in force today.

And FYI--'Brighamites' was a derogatory term, but during Joseph Smith Jr.'s time, there were those who felt the same way about him. They came to believe he was a fallen prophet and they no longer would listen to his counsel, instead choosing to follow another man, such as David Whitmer. Joseph didn't condone that. He believed the people should listen and heed the words of the Lord's duly called, which was him. Read the revelations given through him that pointed out that the Lord expected us to listen and to heed the words of HIS prophet and his servants, those called through revelation to serve in the wards and stakes of the church.

[AI2.0]

We all do agree man (the Brethren) is fallible? We all should say YES, the Brethren are absolutely fallible, they are capable of making and saying errors, and therefore capable of leading men astray by teaching precepts that are not given by the Holy Ghost. If you are not deceived, you should be able to give at least a few examples of false precepts now being taught by the Brethren, or philosophies of men which are mingled with Scripture. If you can't, then that's a good sign your mind has become darkened. The Scriptures teach that only those who take the Holy Ghost to be their guide will not be deceived (DC 45:57)! It's important we hearken to this message because otherwise we will not "abide" His Second Coming. Wake up call to us all!

If we all agree to the obvious fact and unassailable truth that man / the Brethren are fallible, then I ask this: why try to align yourself with the Brethren? Why not skip that step altogether, and simply target Christ as the One you wish to align yourself with? Aren't we supposed to plug ourselves into the true vine anyway?

Underdog

You know what would be helpful in this discussion is one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray. Or where they have exercised unrighteous dominion and mandated in an inappropriate close the windows of heaven sort of fashion. Has this ever occurred? I'm not talking where one or two such as Mathias Cowley and John Taylor go off on a tangent in the early church but a situation like this where the body of the brethren were in agreement and led the church as an institution astray. Is there such an example?

Let me say that I don't think it's apostasy in any shape or form to question if a given precept taught by the Brethren or any member or any non member was given by the power of the Holy Ghost. In fact, it is most assuredly our duty to discern. That's the very test of life. To see if we will do all things the Lord commands us. The Lord warns us, as good missionaries teach investigators, that there will be a need to discern between those who look like sheep, but are in fact wolves. That's a graphic analogy, but it's the Lord's.

LET US PAUSE BEFORE PROCEEDING: Do we agree that it's not apostasy to "prove all things"? Do we agree it's not apostasy to scrutinize any given precept or philosophy till we feel certain it's given of the Holy Ghost?

I assume we all do agree, but I fear that there are many members (leaders and non leaders) who have been conditioned to believe that it IS at least bordering on apostasy to privately question a certain teaching, much less do it publicly. Many of our minds have been conditioned to not question, but to unthinkingly and to blindly follow the Brethren. Many of our minds have been conditioned to ASSUME there is nothing to question, but to trust the Brethren absolutely because, well, they are incapable of leading us astray even if they wanted to.

I fear the percentage of such deceived members is way up in the double digits. 10% would horrific. Anything over 50% would be devastating, and represent a Satanic coup over the minds of members of monumental dimensions. No point in debating how many members are under this spell, but I'm guessing it is quite high, at least 10% and likely much, much higher.

But seriously, I do want to pause and see if my good brothers and sisters here in this Freedom Forum believe that it's not apostasy to judge/discern/question/ponder/prayerfully consider/discuss ANY and ALL precepts taught by the Brethren to determine if they were given by the Holy Ghost or not. Agreed?

Would anybody here boldly dare to say that it IS an act of apostasy to attempt to discern the truthfulness or falseness of a given precept? If you're under the spell or influence of a lying spirit, then you probably right now want to say it is an act of apostasy to question precepts taught by the Brethren, and yet, you aren't able to justify your reasoning by using common sense, reason, or scripture. If you can make justifications, please share.

Now, to the question raised: I will offer one "doctrinal" example where the brethren have as a body led us astray. I've looked at this from every angle that I can think of. It is the part of OD1 that was added in 1981. The part where he says the leader can't lead the church astray. It was 1981 that Pres. Wilford Woodruff's personal opinions were added to our canon of Scripture. That would have been during Pres. Kimball's time as president, along with many men whom I regard as great men of God.

I've went back to 1981 and looked carefully at the two General Conferences that year. It's all available at www.lds.org. No announcement or even slightest reference was made of the additions. There was no vote, no sustaining, no discussion whatsoever. The excerpts from the early 1890's were just quietly slipped in and never talked about over the pulpit. Then the new scriptures were printed, sold, and shipped out to the members. It was like a small cancer was intentionally and secretly added to a healthy body. The body goes on living, not knowing of the cancer growing within.

Well, it has grown, and metastasized and now could be past the point of being able to be cured. I don't know. That's why the Lord through Joseph Smith restored some plain and precious truths lost from Mark 9. The King James Committee really butchered that chapter. It's very likely that if you're reading this, you are not aware (and why should you be since you've never heard JST Mark 9 taught in GC or in Sunday School or Seminary) of one of the most important things Jesus ever taught on the importance of discernment and sacrifice, even when the sacrifice requires drastic actions that are very painful if not impossible for most people to contemplate, much less carry out.

JST Mark 9 in our own very scriptures has this introduction: "Cutting off an offending hand or foot is compared to eliminating associations which may lead one astray. (compare Mark 9: 43-48)". When you read the 9 short verses, you notice a mini chiasmus:

1) Body parts (church body/members -- hand and foot) "offend" by not being of Christ, and are "cut off" to save one's own soul from hell.
2) Then the centerpiece of the message is stated, "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another. Seek unto my Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive."
3) Then back to body parts, by mentioning "the eye", defined as "him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light" which needs to be plucked out.

The one idea that is repeated FIVE times in nine verses is that it's better to enter into eternal life then go to hell with those who apostatize against the Gospel.

The challenge is twofold: to discern truth from error, and then to have the courage to sacrifice loved ones if need be, for he that loveth others more than Christ are not worthy of Christ. It's not so much people, in my mind, as letting go of false traditions.

Which leads us back to the one example I submit could be the #1 reason the LDS Church membership rots from within and completely apostatizes like has happened in every other dispensation not led by Enoch or Melchizedek where the people became Zion and were ultimately translated (also note what Zenos' allegory says about what would happen to us in Jacob 5). That #1 reason is the secret, quiet insertion of the pernicious, devilish idea that man cannot lead us astray. The qualifier of 2 Nephi 28:31 is not mentioned by Pres Woodruf. He said "it's not in the programme of the Lord" to allow leaders to lead the Church astray." This is utterly false and wicked and without scriptural support and in fact, dozens of Scriptures teach otherwise. Despite the complete lack of Scriptural support, this anti Christ doctrine was included in our Scriptures in the dark of night (no announcement, no vote).

After much searching, I finally found an October 1981 Ensign article which gives a slight reference to Pres Woodruff's added opinions. See https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the- ... n?lang=eng. That article from a guy named Bruce Harper who was serving as an admin assistant in the Church Missionary Dept, says this about the devilish addition: "The new additions to the text are...excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto..." That's it!! Nothing in General Conference. If you were trying to cover it up and do your level best to conceal the addition of this cancer from Church membership, I guess this is how you'd do it. Now you can point to an obscure Ensign article in which some bureaucrat vaguely mentions the additions in passing.

There was an attempt in this Harper-written article to help members feel good about the changes: Quoting Elder McConkie: "Every correction was approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Brethren felt good about each of them." And the concluding remark of Elder Packer, "Everything that could be done has been done to help open the scriptures to members so that they might know the gospel of Jesus Christ."

But there was never any discussion or formal or informal explanation as to why this false "doctrine" was added to our cannon, and there was never a sustaining vote. We're not sure WHO proposed these excerpts of Woodruff's opinions be added, but can we agree that it's highly likely that members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were aware of and approved of the additions.

If some members of the Twelve were not informed, but intentionally kept in the dark (which I admit could be possible), then we would have a whole other problem: we'd have a conspiracy to deceive such members of the Twelve by other members of the Twelve. But I believe this is not likely, because eventually ALL members of the Twelve would have heard of or read the Woodruff excerpts and they ALL would have had the opportunity to publicly denounce such dangerous dogma. But we have no record of such denouncements so we are left to conclude that they approve "as a body".

So to summarize, "one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray" would be consciously and secretly adding the excerpts to our canon in 1981 and never objecting to these additions since. I believe this one stunning victory in 1981 by Satan gave him a beachhead, and now after almost 40 years, he's been able to pollute and confuse and darken the minds of many leaders and many members so the result is that many leaders think they are impervious to any serious attack from Satan (saying stuff like, "Oh well, even if I am wrong, there's no real damage...the work will go on...no consequence...nobody will be led astray..."), and the members believe they can and should implicitly trust their local authorities, because as Passionflower said just above in her incorrect assumption, "whether spoken by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." The false assumption that's now rampant is that the Brethren are true servants who can't lead us astray. I believe we can trace the cause of such a false assumption to 1981, when the excerpts were added to OD1.

The antidote to such a foolish, anti Christ teaching is to take the Holy Ghost to be our guide (DC 45) and to carefully and prayerfully consider if precepts are given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Of course, we should also always be measuring any and all precepts against the revealed word of God in Scripture because God is an unchangeable God.

You seem to be under a notion that this is a false and nefarious doctrine that was 'slipped in' under cover of darkness. You think 'whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same' is an incorrect assumption? It wasn't PassionFlower that made that up, THE LORD said it. She was correct in pointing you to that a scriptural declaration. And it's not false, it's a true doctrine of the church; This is the LAST time we will work in the vineyard before the coming of the Lord, the church is not going to go into apostasy--unfortunately some members will, but the church as a whole will not. The Keys will not be taken from our Prophets and apostles and the Lord will not suffer that one of his prophets could lead the church astray, just as Pres. Wilford Woodruff reminded the members.

Now this doesn't take the responsibility away from church members to ask and pray to receive their own witness of church doctrines and that we are led by the Lord's chosen prophets--dare I point out that if you'd done that, maybe you wouldn't have gone astray yourself.

You can find examples of this doctrine of the church taught in General Conference talks.

IN 2010 Elder Costa even reiterated the whole 'Fourteen Fundamentals of following the Prophet'

Fourth fundamental: “The prophet will never lead the Church astray” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 27).

Again we learn from the living prophets. President Wilford Woodruff said: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1).

You might want to take note of number 14 as well...:

“Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 29).

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

And Elder Ballard in 2014:

Recently, I spoke at the new mission presidents’ seminar and counseled these leaders:

“Keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the Church. … We will not and … cannot lead [you] astray.

“And as you teach your missionaries to focus their eyes on us, teach them to never follow those who think they know more about how to administer the affairs of the Church than … Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ do” through the priesthood leaders who have the keys to preside.

“I have discovered in my ministry that those who have become lost [and] confused are typically those who have most often … forgotten that when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time. The Lord reminds us, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same’ [D&C 1:38].”5

In other words, they leave the Old Ship Zion—they fall away; they apostatize. Tragically, they often experience short-term and eventually long-term unintended consequences, not only for themselves but also for their families.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

And Here's Pres. Nelson in 2014;

The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.17 Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils. They learn how to hear the voice of the Lord through the whisperings of the Spirit.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

This is not a new doctrine, when Wilford Woodruff said it over 100 years ago, no one batted an eye because they already understood that 'it was NOT in the program' to ever have a Prophet at the head of the church who would lead the church astray. The Lord did not set up a church organization which was going to fall into apostasy, but was going to remain and continue to move forward in preparing a people for the second coming of the Lord. This was understood from the very beginnings of the restoration.

[brlenox]

But there was never any discussion or formal or informal explanation as to why this false "doctrine" was added to our cannon, and there was never a sustaining vote. We're not sure WHO proposed these excerpts of Woodruff's opinions be added, but can we agree that it's highly likely that members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were aware of and approved of the additions.

If some members of the Twelve were not informed, but intentionally kept in the dark (which I admit could be possible), then we would have a whole other problem: we'd have a conspiracy to deceive such members of the Twelve by other members of the Twelve. But I believe this is not likely, because eventually ALL members of the Twelve would have heard of or read the Woodruff excerpts and they ALL would have had the opportunity to publicly denounce such dangerous dogma. But we have no record of such denouncements so we are left to conclude that they approve "as a body".

So to summarize, "one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray" would be consciously and secretly adding the excerpts to our canon in 1981 and never objecting to these additions since. I believe this one stunning victory in 1981 by Satan gave him a beachhead, and now after almost 40 years, he's been able to pollute and confuse and darken the minds of many leaders and many members so the result is that many leaders think they are impervious to any serious attack from Satan (saying stuff like, "Oh well, even if I am wrong, there's no real damage...the work will go on...no consequence...nobody will be led astray..."), and the members believe they can and should implicitly trust their local authorities, because as Passionflower said just above in her incorrect assumption, "whether spoken by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." The false assumption that's now rampant is that the Brethren are true servants who can't lead us astray. I believe we can trace the cause of such a false assumption to 1981, when the excerpts were added to OD1.

The antidote to such a foolish, anti Christ teaching is to take the Holy Ghost to be our guide (DC 45) and to carefully and prayerfully consider if precepts are given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Of course, we should also always be measuring any and all precepts against the revealed word of God in Scripture because God is an unchangeable God.

Under Dog,

I like AI2.0, have come to the conclusion that there is little value in trying to disabuse you of errant perceptions. I could go to great lengths to illustrate that the excerpts are not part of the Canon of LDS scripture as they are more like explanatory notes. However, I think even the discussion would undermine their addition for though they may not stand the test of canon, they are a wonderful addition to provide insight into what was one of the most challenging course adjustments the Church has ever made. They are very valuable tools in assisting those who can, to see into the mindset of Wilford Woodruff. I for one consider them a valuable asset.

If you wish to address the nature of my analysis of why I equated your use of the term of "arm of flesh" as the equivalent of being mortal ie possessing an arm of flesh, then I would be most interested in your response, otherwise thanks for the interaction.

[underdog]

We all do agree man (the Brethren) is fallible? We all should say YES, the Brethren are absolutely fallible, they are capable of making and saying errors, and therefore capable of leading men astray by teaching precepts that are not given by the Holy Ghost. If you are not deceived, you should be able to give at least a few examples of false precepts now being taught by the Brethren, or philosophies of men which are mingled with Scripture. If you can't, then that's a good sign your mind has become darkened. The Scriptures teach that only those who take the Holy Ghost to be their guide will not be deceived (DC 45:57)! It's important we hearken to this message because otherwise we will not "abide" His Second Coming. Wake up call to us all!

If we all agree to the obvious fact and unassailable truth that man / the Brethren are fallible, then I ask this: why try to align yourself with the Brethren? Why not skip that step altogether, and simply target Christ as the One you wish to align yourself with? Aren't we supposed to plug ourselves into the true vine anyway?

Underdog

You know what would be helpful in this discussion is one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray. Or where they have exercised unrighteous dominion and mandated in an inappropriate close the windows of heaven sort of fashion. Has this ever occurred? I'm not talking where one or two such as Mathias Cowley and John Taylor go off on a tangent in the early church but a situation like this where the body of the brethren were in agreement and led the church as an institution astray. Is there such an example?

Let me say that I don't think it's apostasy in any shape or form to question if a given precept taught by the Brethren or any member or any non member was given by the power of the Holy Ghost. In fact, it is most assuredly our duty to discern. That's the very test of life. To see if we will do all things the Lord commands us. The Lord warns us, as good missionaries teach investigators, that there will be a need to discern between those who look like sheep, but are in fact wolves. That's a graphic analogy, but it's the Lord's.

LET US PAUSE BEFORE PROCEEDING: Do we agree that it's not apostasy to "prove all things"? Do we agree it's not apostasy to scrutinize any given precept or philosophy till we feel certain it's given of the Holy Ghost?

I assume we all do agree, but I fear that there are many members (leaders and non leaders) who have been conditioned to believe that it IS at least bordering on apostasy to privately question a certain teaching, much less do it publicly. Many of our minds have been conditioned to not question, but to unthinkingly and to blindly follow the Brethren. Many of our minds have been conditioned to ASSUME there is nothing to question, but to trust the Brethren absolutely because, well, they are incapable of leading us astray even if they wanted to.

I fear the percentage of such deceived members is way up in the double digits. 10% would horrific. Anything over 50% would be devastating, and represent a Satanic coup over the minds of members of monumental dimensions. No point in debating how many members are under this spell, but I'm guessing it is quite high, at least 10% and likely much, much higher.

But seriously, I do want to pause and see if my good brothers and sisters here in this Freedom Forum believe that it's not apostasy to judge/discern/question/ponder/prayerfully consider/discuss ANY and ALL precepts taught by the Brethren to determine if they were given by the Holy Ghost or not. Agreed?

Would anybody here boldly dare to say that it IS an act of apostasy to attempt to discern the truthfulness or falseness of a given precept? If you're under the spell or influence of a lying spirit, then you probably right now want to say it is an act of apostasy to question precepts taught by the Brethren, and yet, you aren't able to justify your reasoning by using common sense, reason, or scripture. If you can make justifications, please share.

Now, to the question raised: I will offer one "doctrinal" example where the brethren have as a body led us astray. I've looked at this from every angle that I can think of. It is the part of OD1 that was added in 1981. The part where he says the leader can't lead the church astray. It was 1981 that Pres. Wilford Woodruff's personal opinions were added to our canon of Scripture. That would have been during Pres. Kimball's time as president, along with many men whom I regard as great men of God.

I've went back to 1981 and looked carefully at the two General Conferences that year. It's all available at www.lds.org. No announcement or even slightest reference was made of the additions. There was no vote, no sustaining, no discussion whatsoever. The excerpts from the early 1890's were just quietly slipped in and never talked about over the pulpit. Then the new scriptures were printed, sold, and shipped out to the members. It was like a small cancer was intentionally and secretly added to a healthy body. The body goes on living, not knowing of the cancer growing within.

Well, it has grown, and metastasized and now could be past the point of being able to be cured. I don't know. That's why the Lord through Joseph Smith restored some plain and precious truths lost from Mark 9. The King James Committee really butchered that chapter. It's very likely that if you're reading this, you are not aware (and why should you be since you've never heard JST Mark 9 taught in GC or in Sunday School or Seminary) of one of the most important things Jesus ever taught on the importance of discernment and sacrifice, even when the sacrifice requires drastic actions that are very painful if not impossible for most people to contemplate, much less carry out.

JST Mark 9 in our own very scriptures has this introduction: "Cutting off an offending hand or foot is compared to eliminating associations which may lead one astray. (compare Mark 9: 43-48)". When you read the 9 short verses, you notice a mini chiasmus:

1) Body parts (church body/members -- hand and foot) "offend" by not being of Christ, and are "cut off" to save one's own soul from hell.
2) Then the centerpiece of the message is stated, "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another. Seek unto my Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive."
3) Then back to body parts, by mentioning "the eye", defined as "him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light" which needs to be plucked out.

The one idea that is repeated FIVE times in nine verses is that it's better to enter into eternal life then go to hell with those who apostatize against the Gospel.

The challenge is twofold: to discern truth from error, and then to have the courage to sacrifice loved ones if need be, for he that loveth others more than Christ are not worthy of Christ. It's not so much people, in my mind, as letting go of false traditions.

Which leads us back to the one example I submit could be the #1 reason the LDS Church membership rots from within and completely apostatizes like has happened in every other dispensation not led by Enoch or Melchizedek where the people became Zion and were ultimately translated (also note what Zenos' allegory says about what would happen to us in Jacob 5). That #1 reason is the secret, quiet insertion of the pernicious, devilish idea that man cannot lead us astray. The qualifier of 2 Nephi 28:31 is not mentioned by Pres Woodruf. He said "it's not in the programme of the Lord" to allow leaders to lead the Church astray." This is utterly false and wicked and without scriptural support and in fact, dozens of Scriptures teach otherwise. Despite the complete lack of Scriptural support, this anti Christ doctrine was included in our Scriptures in the dark of night (no announcement, no vote).

After much searching, I finally found an October 1981 Ensign article which gives a slight reference to Pres Woodruff's added opinions. See https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the- ... n?lang=eng. That article from a guy named Bruce Harper who was serving as an admin assistant in the Church Missionary Dept, says this about the devilish addition: "The new additions to the text are...excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto..." That's it!! Nothing in General Conference. If you were trying to cover it up and do your level best to conceal the addition of this cancer from Church membership, I guess this is how you'd do it. Now you can point to an obscure Ensign article in which some bureaucrat vaguely mentions the additions in passing.

There was an attempt in this Harper-written article to help members feel good about the changes: Quoting Elder McConkie: "Every correction was approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Brethren felt good about each of them." And the concluding remark of Elder Packer, "Everything that could be done has been done to help open the scriptures to members so that they might know the gospel of Jesus Christ."

But there was never any discussion or formal or informal explanation as to why this false "doctrine" was added to our cannon, and there was never a sustaining vote. We're not sure WHO proposed these excerpts of Woodruff's opinions be added, but can we agree that it's highly likely that members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were aware of and approved of the additions.

If some members of the Twelve were not informed, but intentionally kept in the dark (which I admit could be possible), then we would have a whole other problem: we'd have a conspiracy to deceive such members of the Twelve by other members of the Twelve. But I believe this is not likely, because eventually ALL members of the Twelve would have heard of or read the Woodruff excerpts and they ALL would have had the opportunity to publicly denounce such dangerous dogma. But we have no record of such denouncements so we are left to conclude that they approve "as a body".

So to summarize, "one example where the brethren have as a body led us astray" would be consciously and secretly adding the excerpts to our canon in 1981 and never objecting to these additions since. I believe this one stunning victory in 1981 by Satan gave him a beachhead, and now after almost 40 years, he's been able to pollute and confuse and darken the minds of many leaders and many members so the result is that many leaders think they are impervious to any serious attack from Satan (saying stuff like, "Oh well, even if I am wrong, there's no real damage...the work will go on...no consequence...nobody will be led astray..."), and the members believe they can and should implicitly trust their local authorities, because as Passionflower said just above in her incorrect assumption, "whether spoken by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." The false assumption that's now rampant is that the Brethren are true servants who can't lead us astray. I believe we can trace the cause of such a false assumption to 1981, when the excerpts were added to OD1.

The antidote to such a foolish, anti Christ teaching is to take the Holy Ghost to be our guide (DC 45) and to carefully and prayerfully consider if precepts are given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Of course, we should also always be measuring any and all precepts against the revealed word of God in Scripture because God is an unchangeable God.

You seem to be under a notion that this is a false and nefarious doctrine that was 'slipped in' under cover of darkness. You think 'whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same' is an incorrect assumption? It wasn't PassionFlower that made that up, THE LORD said it. She was correct in pointing you to that a scriptural declaration. And it's not false, it's a true doctrine of the church; This is the LAST time we will work in the vineyard before the coming of the Lord, the church is not going to go into apostasy--unfortunately some members will, but the church as a whole will not. The Keys will not be taken from our Prophets and apostles and the Lord will not suffer that one of his prophets could lead the church astray, just as Pres. Wilford Woodruff reminded the members.

Now this doesn't take the responsibility away from church members to ask and pray to receive their own witness of church doctrines and that we are led by the Lord's chosen prophets--dare I point out that if you'd done that, maybe you wouldn't have gone astray yourself.

You can find examples of this doctrine of the church taught in General Conference talks.

IN 2010 Elder Costa even reiterated the whole 'Fourteen Fundamentals of following the Prophet'

Fourth fundamental: “The prophet will never lead the Church astray” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 27).

Again we learn from the living prophets. President Wilford Woodruff said: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1).

You might want to take note of number 14 as well...:

“Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 29).

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

And Elder Ballard in 2014:

Recently, I spoke at the new mission presidents’ seminar and counseled these leaders:

“Keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the Church. … We will not and … cannot lead [you] astray.

“And as you teach your missionaries to focus their eyes on us, teach them to never follow those who think they know more about how to administer the affairs of the Church than … Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ do” through the priesthood leaders who have the keys to preside.

“I have discovered in my ministry that those who have become lost [and] confused are typically those who have most often … forgotten that when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time. The Lord reminds us, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same’ [D&C 1:38].”5

In other words, they leave the Old Ship Zion—they fall away; they apostatize. Tragically, they often experience short-term and eventually long-term unintended consequences, not only for themselves but also for their families.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

And Here's Pres. Nelson in 2014;

The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.17 Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils. They learn how to hear the voice of the Lord through the whisperings of the Spirit.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

This is not a new doctrine, when Wilford Woodruff said it over 100 years ago, no one batted an eye because they already understood that 'it was NOT in the program' to ever have a Prophet at the head of the church who would lead the church astray. The Lord did not set up a church organization which was going to fall into apostasy, but was going to remain and continue to move forward in preparing a people for the second coming of the Lord. This was understood from the very beginnings of the restoration.

You said: You think 'whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same' is an incorrect assumption? It wasn't PassionFlower that made that up, THE LORD said it.

Me: I would have expected that you would suspect I am familiar with DC 1:38. I didn't say DC 1:38 was false, I said (to quote myself), "The false assumption that's now rampant is that the Brethren are true servants who can't lead us astray." You are doing the same thing as Passionflower. You are assuming (falsely) that "the Brethren" are "my servants" in verse 38. I am challenging your assumption. I too made it for years.

Keep in mind I am an active Mormon now. One kid currently on mission. I've served in leadership for over 20 years. I read my scriptures daily. Know the BoM as well as anybody, having read and studied it so many times I'd rather not quote the number to you as you may think the number to be too high. Temple recommend holder. Married in the temple, etc.

I suggest you re-examine your assumption that "the Brethren" are His servants. Are YOU His servant? What defines "a servant"? A mere calling or ordination at the hand of a man? Perhaps there is more to the story.

You quoted Elder Costa from 2010. He was of course quoting Elder Benson's talk. To quote somebody who said it well:

When this talk was given, it was roundly rejected by Spencer W. Kimball, who was the prophet at the time. In fact this talk very nearly earned Elder Benson a formal rebuke from the First Presidency, and he was required to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve and explain himself to a combined meeting of all the general authorities of the church. In short, President Kimball was MUCH displeased with what was said, and considered it false doctrine.

Oddly enough, the same talk, filled with the same false doctrine, was just given in General Conference in 2010, without a peep from the Twelve, the First Presidency, or the general membership of the church. Nobody bothered to address how the doctrine could be false in 1980, but true 30 years later. Did God change the doctrine? Or did someone else?

So consider this: Brigham Young taught many things that the church has since flatly denied and openly called false (polygamy, Adam-god theory, blood atonement, refusal to ordain blacks, for example.) Obeying Brigham in these items nowadays will get you excommunicated. Yet when Brigham taught these things, he insisted he was speaking the word of the Lord.

Was Brigham wrong? Or is the church today wrong? Remember saving doctrine never changes. God does not vary. Somebody was wrong. Somebody misled you. Was it Brigham, or is it today's leaders? They can't both be right.

This deserves careful thought. Your salvation is at stake.

It is very alarming and sad that you don't have enough scriptural knowledge to understand that the new excerpts in OD1 are completely false and in contradiction to not only reason and common sense, but to a host of scriptures. I have given several in my comments above, but they have fallen on deaf ears. We must judge things by the Scriptures. You appear to be ignorant of them. Or worse, you are choosing to ignore them when quoted.

I can quote dozens of scriptures which prove that WW's statements are utterly false. But I'll quote just one more. 1 Kings 13. Read the chapter and see for yourself that not only can man lead men astray (you've heard of "beware of false prophets" and "the blind leading the blind"?), but a TRUE prophet can be commanded to lead you astray. Yes, you read that right. Read 1 Kings 13 for yourself. I hope you come back here and acknowledge you were in error. I pray you do. Or will you wrest the scriptures to fit what you want to believe, rather than what they actually say. In this case, a TRUE prophet was sent to deceive, was sent to test, was sent to PROVE that the other prophet would obey God over man. That's your test too, as well as my test. If you prefer to follow the Brethren over Christ, then your reward is the telestial kingdom (DC 76:98-101 ish).

Even the sarcastic Lenox (calling me "Under Dog" -- cute!) said above that these WW excerpts added in 1981 "may not stand the test of canon". He acknowledges they aren't scripture, and then acts the part of what appears to be a paid apologist for the Church by saying, "they are a wonderful addition to provide insight into what was one of the most challenging course adjustments the Church has ever made. They are very valuable tools in assisting those who can, to see into the mindset of Wilford Woodruff. I for one consider them a valuable asset."

BOTH of you still refuse to see/ understand that those "wonderful additions" may be the #1 reason for widespread apostasy of the Mormon people from Jesus Christ and His gospel. You cannot escape the fact that you are desperately trying to defend and argue in your comments above that we should trust "the Brethren". Why the fanatical, desperate attempt to do that, instead of agreeing that we should put our faith in Christ, and "Come, follow Him"? Following a man results in ending up in a dark and dreary wasteland (see 1 Nephi 8:5-7). Why fear and tremble because I, a fellow Mormon, exhort you to follow Christ and to not rely on man? This really bothers you. Why should my exhortation and testimony bother you? One firmly on the rock foundation of Christ would say, "Amen brother!" instead of arguing against such a pro Christ, pro gospel, anti idolatry view point I'm offering. You both are arguing FOR idolatry, and against "following just Christ." Think about that. Is that the side you want to be on? Quoting Elder Costa instead of the Lord???!!!! Joseph said of people like you in his day (as I quoted above), your minds are darkened. Please reconsider, but I respect your agency.

[brlenox]

Even the sarcastic Lenox (calling me "Under Dog" -- cute!) said above that these WW excerpts added in 1981 "may not stand the test of canon". He acknowledges they aren't scripture, and then acts the part of what appears to be a paid apologist for the Church by saying, "they are a wonderful addition to provide insight into what was one of the most challenging course adjustments the Church has ever made. They are very valuable tools in assisting those who can, to see into the mindset of Wilford Woodruff. I for one consider them a valuable asset."

BOTH of you still refuse to see/ understand that those "wonderful additions" may be the #1 reason for widespread apostasy of the Mormon people from Jesus Christ and His gospel. You cannot escape the fact that you are desperately trying to defend and argue in your comments above that we should trust "the Brethren". Why the fanatical, desperate attempt to do that, instead of agreeing that we should put our faith in Christ, and "Come, follow Him"? Following a man results in ending up in a dark and dreary wasteland (see 1 Nephi 8:5-7). Why fear and tremble because I, a fellow Mormon, exhort you to follow Christ and to not rely on man? This really bothers you. Why should my exhortation and testimony bother you? One firmly on the rock foundation of Christ would say, "Amen brother!" instead of arguing against such a pro Christ, pro gospel, anti idolatry view point I'm offering. You both are arguing FOR idolatry, and against "following just Christ." Think about that. Is that the side you want to be on? Quoting Elder Costa instead of the Lord???!!!! Joseph said of people like you in his day (as I quoted above), your minds are darkened. Please reconsider, but I respect your agency.

god rednu - You are a tad jumpy it seems. Typically in my posts, which I am sure you are not over familiar with, I typically toss in little tidbits, juxtapositions, sad efforts at humor and such partially as a way to add levity and partially as a means of indicating that I am not so full of myself that I can't be a little playful. Under Dog was simply me playing around. Now that you are god rednu perhaps you will be more satisfied with that but if not I'm just puttering along.

As to your particular take on the concepts of follow the prophet or follow the brethren perhaps you might explain to us how it is that you came to know these things beyond doubt. By what means were you educated? Has your family joined you in agreement. Sometimes the back story can be illuminating and interesting. Of course still interested in your take on my analysis of why I read your use of Arm of flesh as I did.

[underdog]

Even the sarcastic Lenox (calling me "Under Dog" -- cute!) said above that these WW excerpts added in 1981 "may not stand the test of canon". He acknowledges they aren't scripture, and then acts the part of what appears to be a paid apologist for the Church by saying, "they are a wonderful addition to provide insight into what was one of the most challenging course adjustments the Church has ever made. They are very valuable tools in assisting those who can, to see into the mindset of Wilford Woodruff. I for one consider them a valuable asset."

BOTH of you still refuse to see/ understand that those "wonderful additions" may be the #1 reason for widespread apostasy of the Mormon people from Jesus Christ and His gospel. You cannot escape the fact that you are desperately trying to defend and argue in your comments above that we should trust "the Brethren". Why the fanatical, desperate attempt to do that, instead of agreeing that we should put our faith in Christ, and "Come, follow Him"? Following a man results in ending up in a dark and dreary wasteland (see 1 Nephi 8:5-7). Why fear and tremble because I, a fellow Mormon, exhort you to follow Christ and to not rely on man? This really bothers you. Why should my exhortation and testimony bother you? One firmly on the rock foundation of Christ would say, "Amen brother!" instead of arguing against such a pro Christ, pro gospel, anti idolatry view point I'm offering. You both are arguing FOR idolatry, and against "following just Christ." Think about that. Is that the side you want to be on? Quoting Elder Costa instead of the Lord???!!!! Joseph said of people like you in his day (as I quoted above), your minds are darkened. Please reconsider, but I respect your agency.

god rednu - You are a tad jumpy it seems. Typically in my posts, which I am sure you are not over familiar with, I typically toss in little tidbits, juxtapositions, sad efforts at humor and such partially as a way to add levity and partially as a means of indicating that I am not so full of myself that I can't be a little playful. Under Dog was simply me playing around. Now that you are god rednu perhaps you will be more satisfied with that but if not I'm just puttering along.

As to your particular take on the concepts of follow the prophet or follow the brethren perhaps you might explain to us how it is that you came to know these things beyond doubt. By what means were you educated? Has your family joined you in agreement. Sometimes the back story can be illuminating and interesting. Of course still interested in your take on my analysis of why I read your use of Arm of flesh as I did.

You can call me whatever you want, as long as you call me for dinner.

I really don't want to get too personal about myself (though I'll share a little). But I appreciate your interest. I'm not sure how relevant it is. But briefly, how I came to know these things, I can share with you that I have experienced the baptism of fire/the HG. That is a real event, just as the Scriptures teach. It comes as promised after you repent, are baptized and humble yourself as a little child, and lay your will on the altar. That's how I know that Jesus is the Christ and the BoM is the true word of God, and Joseph a true prophet beyond a shadow of a doubt. That would be the means of my education. In other words, I've been taught by the Holy Ghost. However, because there is so much deception, because we live in the Matrix (so to speak), I had been victim to believing lies / traditions which I thought were true. I had been deceived because of accepting tradition without question. Sadly, I admit this. I'm not beyond being deceived now. At least my eyes are open and I'm vigilant and alertly paying attention.

Also my wife was just as shocked as I was, but was compelled by the facts and truth to admit that all is not well in Zion and that the Brethren are treated like rock stars when they should be "the least" of us. The jingling of the keys is done as if that's the only doctrine left in the Church, and it's very transparent to people with interaction with unrighteous dominion priesthood leaders.

One lie (or tradition, or false assumption) is that the Brethren are God's chosen servants just because they were called and ordained to be (DC 107:91-92). For years, I believed that they were special witnesses, though NONE of them has ever testified to have a message that Christ commanded them to deliver. It never occurred to me to even ask the question: do they claim to be a true prophet, as Joseph claimed he was?

None of them claim this. I had believed they were. I was led to believe they were. THEY (many of them) probably believe they are. I had assumed that subsequent leaders of the Church were legitimate spokesmen, as Joseph was. But none of them actually claim this. They insinuate they are, but never have any boldly declared what Joseph declared. We just had a 70 visit our stake and in the Sat night session he on a couple of occasions played the role of Christ and publicly told people their sins were forgiven, that they had repented sufficiently and were no longer condemned by the Lord. He really believed that he could forgive sins. He felt comfortable making those pronouncements. In years past, I would have felt the same level of comfort. Perhaps you do now?

But now I look at the Brethren/ the 12 as no more special than you or I are. We all are equal as far as being able to give a talk that we can pray about and organize so that we feel it's pleasing unto the Lord. But have you ever had an audience with the Lord, or been commanded by Him to share a specific message and state, "Thus saith the Lord"? I haven't. Neither have our Church leaders, not even up to the president. At best they may insinuate but they do not declare it. In fact, some of them prevaricate.

Look at the Brethren's talks. I've dutifully listened to GC for decades. Not one of the talks has the power of Joseph's testimony.Would you disagree? Give me one example. In fact, if you've heard one, you've heard them all. I've heard plenty of good, inspirational talks in my home ward/stake by men and women. These are all good talks, but they don't rise to the level of "prophetic." They don't rise to the level of revelation. If there was a true revelation, it would and should be published as a revelation. All our ears would perk up, and we'd read it and have something to judge. But there have been no such revelations in modern times from the Brethren. There's a famine in the Church as far as the word of the Lord. The Proclamation to the World several years ago, let's face it, any Mormon familiar with our doctrine could have easily written it. Nothing new or clarifying was there.

I would suggest to your mind that if we hear a true message from a true messenger, that the message will be full of light and truth, completely harmonious with Scripture (unlike OD1's excerpts) and would call us to repentance, and would be hugely unpopular and ridiculed by the mainstream body. Such a messenger would be persecuted by the ruling priest class, as Abinadi was, though I'd expect an "Alma" converted somewhere along the way. If such a man ever was to appear on the scene, he would be accepted by only a few of the mainstream. The majority would esteem his message as a thing of naught. A true prophet is not with honor among his own people, as the saying goes.