Identifying and Coping with "Unrighteous Dominion"

[Arandur]

Regarding agency and OD1. My comments in green.

God honors us by giving us agency to choose. Moses 4:3 shows that He didn't seek to interfere with Satan's plan to mislead billions of His children.

God knew in advance what Satan would do. He knew that Satan would attempt and indeed succeed in leading many people astray. In other words, it was "in the programme of the Lord" (to use WW's words) to let mass numbers of people be led astray. Father in Heaven did in fact "permit" it, her absolutely permitted us to be led astray. God's "programme" is to give us agency, to TOTALLY respect it, and let us choose, even if we choose darkness. He gives us free reign over our will, so that consequences will be completely just. THAT is His programme. And that's NOT what WW explained in his opinion that was added in 1981.

Think about the premortal world when Jesus and Lucifer were pitted against each other in a public setting. The stakes were high. God is on official record as allowing a full 33% of His children to be led astray! What a tremendous cost! Think about how devastating the casualties were. And with His foreknowledge, He knew what the catastrophic result of Satan's deception would be. And yet He let people decide for themselves. He truly did honor His children then by respecting their right to choose. He truly is a God of restraint. Even though he didn't want the result that occurred, which was a tremendous victory for Satan, He refused to interfere. He honors us by letting us decide. What a loving Father in Heaven!!!!! Even His Son, who wanted the bitter cup to pass, even He showed restraint. "Thy will be done," as he partook and finished drinking the bitter cup.

We are in complete agreement to this point.

So how could any member of the Church or Wilford Woodruff think God would change now and become a dictator, or encourage a dictatorship in the Church whereby He wouldn't allow men to lead people astray? He let Satan lead 1/3 of his children astray. Why not let the president of the Church?

This doesn't follow from the premortal example. If Wilford Woodruff had said "if I were to attempt that, God would smite me so that I could no longer deceive you, or I would be struck dumb, or in some other way forced to keep silent", then you might have something here. But he didn't say this. He said God would remove him out of his place. WW isn't saying God will force the Presidents not to deceive. He's saying God will not allow them to do so and remain in their place. They would presumably still be free to go on deceiving after being removed, and D&C 43 leads me to believe that they would only have power to appoint another in their place.

Lucifer didn't go uncontested in his efforts. Those who held greater authority than he did condemned his words and actions. It was not a matter of debate between two potential prophets. Lucifer was opposed by and rebelled against God the Father and Jesus Christ. He didn't hold the highest office. Those who knew who to follow - who held true authority - were not deceived. Those who were confused about this were cast out.

Wilford Woodruff says that exactly the same thing would happen here if a President of the Church attempted to lead the people astray. God, the one who truly leads the church, would remove him from his place. Not silence him entirely. Not end his life on the spot. Not force him to speak only truth or prevent any deception on the part of the man whatsoever in any capacity. Only cast him out of his place, as he did Lucifer. Only ensure that his deceptions would be given as a rebel, not as a true prophet with authority to speak for God. I see no violation of agency in this, nor do I see any contradiction with the events of premortality.

The reason is the exact reason why Lucifer was so successful. 1/3 of the people really LIKED the idea of a guarantee. "Not one soul shall be lost." This sounded very appealing to a third of us. "Hmmm, if I go with Lucifer's plan, I'll be saved and make it back! Heck yeah!"

WW and Satan seek to destroy the agency of man by making guarantees. WW said the Lord would NEVER permit the Church to be led astray. Satan promised he'd never fail and everyone who followed him would be saved.

I already addressed this guarantee thing elsewhere, but I wanted to add that Christ also promises that everyone who follows him will be saved. The gospel is built on guarantees. We couldn't exercise faith in God's promises if they weren't guarantees. The difference is that Satan had no authority to make his guarantee, nor power to bring it to pass.

Finally, you mentioned that another facet of this evidence was the way it was brought into OD1 - without a vote and without announcement. I can only assume that what you're asserting in the background here is something like "if the church were led by a true prophet, there definitely would have been a vote, or at least an announcement". I don't see the evidence for that claim. Care to elaborate, or to correct my understanding of your claim?

[underdog]

RAB,

We agree on 2 things:

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

So you essentially have no good arguments against my arguments, but in typical fashion raise new ones. Very well. I will address those as well.

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth. While the other apostasies were prophesied about, there was no prophesy about the latter-day Church going into apostasy. So it is your premise that actually goes against history. Furthermore, the Church is just as Nephi prophesied, relatively small in number compared to the whole earth but fills the whole earth. Zion is being built day by day, person by person throughout the Stakes of the world as people decide to change and become better people. The story isn't over yet, and the millenium hasn't happened yet, so your argument about the Church failing in its purpose is ludicrous since it is just as Nephi decribed it would be prior to the millenium.

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

First of all, there is no requirement to say, "Thus saith the Lord" every time they say something...unless the Lord tells them they should say "Thus saith the Lord." Joseph addressed this issue early in the Church, and the Lord did as well by saying "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." So you are adding a requirement that does not exist. We have true prophets today, and you have again ignored that the prophesies of the latter day kingdom did not mention a reboot. As for current revelations, Joseph was accused of being a fallen prophet because he did not publish new sections of the Doctrine and Covenants near the end of his life. That is because, as I stated earlier but you ignored, all of the ordinances, authority, and doctrine necessary to establish the Church were restored. The Lord said that in ordinances of the Priesthood is the power of Godliness manifest, not in publishing new revelations to satisfy itching ears. Do all members of the Church seriously study the Book of Mormon as we have been counseled to do daily? Do they search the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price for understanding? Have we really done what needs to be done to receive additional scripture as a people? I would submit that we have not. Though the Lord has opened up many great and wonderful insights to me and others through our personal study, as a whole, there is no justification for new revelation when the previous revelation has been left largely unstudied. That isn't to say there has not been new prophesy and revelation from time to time. We had the revelation ending plural marriage, the revelation providing the Priesthood to all worthy members, the revelation concerning the work taking place in the spirit world, and most recently the Proclamation on the Family. That came out just prior to the world trying to re-define what marriages and families are, and will be of great benefit to show what our deeply held religious beliefs are. It also prophesies of what will happen to nations that do not support the family. So, just because you don't see the revelations, doesn't mean they aren't there. And just because they aren't happening all the time, doesn't mean the Church is in apostasy either, as Joseph was accused of the same thing.

One must be given keys to organize the Church. The Lord gave those keys to Joseph Smith and the Apostles, and they have held them ever since. There is no scriptural authority that anyone can "wrest" the keys from them, especially one who had no keys in the first place. Any fraud can say "Thus saith the Lord" and Christ mentioned some of those, that they would claim to have done many marvelous things in His name. What was His retort. "I never knew you." Denver Snuffer is a fraud. All who follow him are deceived.

I have responded point by point to your arguments with scriptures and sound reason. You turn things upside down. Why you say I ignore your arguments is false on its face. You're continuing to say things that aren't true or inaccurate. I detect no spirit of humility from you.

And the fact that you say this exposes you: "The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth."

This is your opinion. Do you acknowledge this? We have not a translated Zion, and the pattern has stopped? You can't point to a scripture that says a "church" in Daniel. Joseph said the "truth" will go forth. DC 13 says the priesthood will never be taken from the earth, but it's tradition that morphs these statements or prophecies into "a Church". It is a fact that a translated Zion has not been established. Not even close. I've given you 5 facts of apostasy which are confirmable facts. UD abounds. Censorhip abounds. Priestcraft abounds. You look the other way at your own peril.

I'm wired up very differently than you. I succumb to truth. That's how I accepted the BoM in the first place. If somebody approached me with the 5 evidences of apostasy I've listed, I would have to admit they have a point with each one. I might say as a TBM:

1) Yeah, you're right, it's true, since man is fallible, it's possible the president of the church could at least theoretically err and therefore lead us astray. I don't believe that's the case, but it's at least possible. Otherwise I sound like a true blue Catholic who believes in an inerrant pope, despite mounds of evidence against that notion.
2) About the addition of WW's excerpts in OD 1 in 1981, holy cow! I didn't know that!! That can't be true. Why wasn't there a church vote? Why wasn't there any announcement? I'll have to research that one!
3) The fact that Elder Poelman refilmed his talk and the church spliced the new part into the original. That is weird! No announcement? Even weirder! As far the content of the new talk trying to blur the distinction between the Brethren and Christ...I can't argue -- that is a fact. That's exactly what it does. But I'm sure there has to be a good reason.
4) You're right about the The BoM Introduction's last paragraph. I can see it with my own eyes. And I can't argue with the plain logic that because the Holy Ghost testifies the BoM is true, that doesn't mean presidents of the Church subsequent to Joseph Smith are true. A witness of the Spirit does mean JOSEPH was a true prophet, but not later presidents. I can't find fault with the basic, sound logic brought forth.
5) I have to agree, if a sincere member asks sincere questions about the above 4 things in Church, that the questions would not be warmly welcomed by most leaders. They'd say that member is doubting. There wouldn't be a genuine conversation seeking for truth and understanding because very quickly somebody would say, "What are you saying? Do you think the Church is apostate? That can't be true. So why are you even asking the question!?" BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 4 EVIDENCES? "Put them out of your mind right now! The Church can never apostatize." BUT..."Now, come on. You're not going to argue with a keys-holding priesthood leader, are you? The church is true." BUT WHAT ABOUT..."You're starting to sound apostate! Fall in line!"

Or, you could ask, knock, and seek, and see what the Lord will teach you.

Cover up of truth and expelling the humble and meek are tactics of the Adversary. The Lord says, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood..."

I could give you 10 more MAJOR, blockbuster evidences of Apostasy, but I'm guessing you all (NONE OF YOU) want to hear it. Would I be correct?

Prove me wrong, but I'm quite confident you don't want to hear more evidences. You justify putting your fingers in your ears because "the Church is true" and that is the false premise you will use to defend any and all evidences of apostasy. The Sanhedrin did the same thing. They knew they were right. And they killed the Son of God.

That's why you guys (except for one humble soul -- BackBlast) refused to even answer the question, "If the Lord chose and sent a TRUE outsider prophet, and the Brethren denounced that true prophet, would you receive that prophet?" You all are on record above as refusing to answer the question because of your unbelief. "That would never happen," you say. "That would mean the Church is apostate and that can not happen!" And yet, Jesus came as an outsider prophet. It did happen. And could happen, if it hasn't already. The fact that you would reject such a prophet means you would have rejected Jesus just like most of the Jews did.

[Arenera]

RAB,

We agree on 2 things:

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

So you essentially have no good arguments against my arguments, but in typical fashion raise new ones. Very well. I will address those as well.

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth. While the other apostasies were prophesied about, there was no prophesy about the latter-day Church going into apostasy. So it is your premise that actually goes against history. Furthermore, the Church is just as Nephi prophesied, relatively small in number compared to the whole earth but fills the whole earth. Zion is being built day by day, person by person throughout the Stakes of the world as people decide to change and become better people. The story isn't over yet, and the millenium hasn't happened yet, so your argument about the Church failing in its purpose is ludicrous since it is just as Nephi decribed it would be prior to the millenium.

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

First of all, there is no requirement to say, "Thus saith the Lord" every time they say something...unless the Lord tells them they should say "Thus saith the Lord." Joseph addressed this issue early in the Church, and the Lord did as well by saying "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." So you are adding a requirement that does not exist. We have true prophets today, and you have again ignored that the prophesies of the latter day kingdom did not mention a reboot. As for current revelations, Joseph was accused of being a fallen prophet because he did not publish new sections of the Doctrine and Covenants near the end of his life. That is because, as I stated earlier but you ignored, all of the ordinances, authority, and doctrine necessary to establish the Church were restored. The Lord said that in ordinances of the Priesthood is the power of Godliness manifest, not in publishing new revelations to satisfy itching ears. Do all members of the Church seriously study the Book of Mormon as we have been counseled to do daily? Do they search the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price for understanding? Have we really done what needs to be done to receive additional scripture as a people? I would submit that we have not. Though the Lord has opened up many great and wonderful insights to me and others through our personal study, as a whole, there is no justification for new revelation when the previous revelation has been left largely unstudied. That isn't to say there has not been new prophesy and revelation from time to time. We had the revelation ending plural marriage, the revelation providing the Priesthood to all worthy members, the revelation concerning the work taking place in the spirit world, and most recently the Proclamation on the Family. That came out just prior to the world trying to re-define what marriages and families are, and will be of great benefit to show what our deeply held religious beliefs are. It also prophesies of what will happen to nations that do not support the family. So, just because you don't see the revelations, doesn't mean they aren't there. And just because they aren't happening all the time, doesn't mean the Church is in apostasy either, as Joseph was accused of the same thing.

One must be given keys to organize the Church. The Lord gave those keys to Joseph Smith and the Apostles, and they have held them ever since. There is no scriptural authority that anyone can "wrest" the keys from them, especially one who had no keys in the first place. Any fraud can say "Thus saith the Lord" and Christ mentioned some of those, that they would claim to have done many marvelous things in His name. What was His retort. "I never knew you." Denver Snuffer is a fraud. All who follow him are deceived.

I have responded point by point to your arguments with scriptures and sound reason. You turn things upside down. Why you say I ignore your arguments is false on its face. You're continuing to say things that aren't true or inaccurate. I detect no spirit of humility from you.

And the fact that you say this exposes you: "The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth."

This is your opinion. Do you acknowledge this? We have not a translated Zion, and the pattern has stopped? You can't point to a scripture that says a "church" in Daniel. Joseph said the "truth" will go forth. DC 13 says the priesthood will never be taken from the earth, but it's tradition that morphs these statements or prophecies into "a Church". It is a fact that a translated Zion has not been established. Not even close. I've given you 5 facts of apostasy which are confirmable facts. UD abounds. Censorhip abounds. Priestcraft abounds. You look the other way at your own peril.

I'm wired up very differently than you. I succumb to truth. That's how I accepted the BoM in the first place. If somebody approached me with the 5 evidences of apostasy I've listed, I would have to admit they have a point with each one. I might say as a TBM:

1) Yeah, you're right, it's true, since man is fallible, it's possible the president of the church could at least theoretically err and therefore lead us astray. I don't believe that's the case, but it's at least possible. Otherwise I sound like a true blue Catholic who believes in an inerrant pope, despite mounds of evidence against that notion.
2) About the addition of WW's excerpts in OD 1 in 1981, holy cow! I didn't know that!! That can't be true. Why wasn't there a church vote? Why wasn't there any announcement? I'll have to research that one!
3) The fact that Elder Poelman refilmed his talk and the church spliced the new part into the original. That is weird! No announcement? Even weirder! As far the content of the new talk trying to blur the distinction between the Brethren and Christ...I can't argue -- that is a fact. That's exactly what it does. But I'm sure there has to be a good reason.
4) You're right about the The BoM Introduction's last paragraph. I can see it with my own eyes. And I can't argue with the plain logic that because the Holy Ghost testifies the BoM is true, that doesn't mean presidents of the Church subsequent to Joseph Smith are true. A witness of the Spirit does mean JOSEPH was a true prophet, but not later presidents. I can't find fault with the basic, sound logic brought forth.
5) I have to agree, if a sincere member asks sincere questions about the above 4 things in Church, that the questions would not be warmly welcomed by most leaders. They'd say that member is doubting. There wouldn't be a genuine conversation seeking for truth and understanding because very quickly somebody would say, "What are you saying? Do you think the Church is apostate? That can't be true. So why are you even asking the question!?" BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 4 EVIDENCES? "Put them out of your mind right now! The Church can never apostatize." BUT..."Now, come on. You're not going to argue with a keys-holding priesthood leader, are you? The church is true." BUT WHAT ABOUT..."You're starting to sound apostate! Fall in line!"

Or, you could ask, knock, and seek, and see what the Lord will teach you.

Cover up of truth and expelling the humble and meek are tactics of the Adversary. The Lord says, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood..."

I could give you 10 more MAJOR, blockbuster evidences of Apostasy, but I'm guessing you all (NONE OF YOU) want to hear it. Would I be correct?

Prove me wrong, but I'm quite confident you don't want to hear more evidences. You justify putting your fingers in your ears because "the Church is true" and that is the false premise you will use to defend any and all evidences of apostasy. The Sanhedrin did the same thing. They knew they were right. And they killed the Son of God.

That's why you guys (except for one humble soul -- BackBlast) refused to even answer the question, "If the Lord chose and sent a TRUE outsider prophet, and the Brethren denounced that true prophet, would you receive that prophet?" You all are on record above as refusing to answer the question because of your unbelief. "That would never happen," you say. "That would mean the Church is apostate and that can not happen!" And yet, Jesus came as an outsider prophet. It did happen. And could happen, if it hasn't already. The fact that you would reject such a prophet means you would have rejected Jesus just like most of the Jews did.

Dude, anti mormons have thousands of points against us. You adding 5 or 10, no big deal. Just more bunk. Silly kid, bunk is for unbelievers.

[underdog]

RAB,

We agree on 2 things:

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

So you essentially have no good arguments against my arguments, but in typical fashion raise new ones. Very well. I will address those as well.

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth. While the other apostasies were prophesied about, there was no prophesy about the latter-day Church going into apostasy. So it is your premise that actually goes against history. Furthermore, the Church is just as Nephi prophesied, relatively small in number compared to the whole earth but fills the whole earth. Zion is being built day by day, person by person throughout the Stakes of the world as people decide to change and become better people. The story isn't over yet, and the millenium hasn't happened yet, so your argument about the Church failing in its purpose is ludicrous since it is just as Nephi decribed it would be prior to the millenium.

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

First of all, there is no requirement to say, "Thus saith the Lord" every time they say something...unless the Lord tells them they should say "Thus saith the Lord." Joseph addressed this issue early in the Church, and the Lord did as well by saying "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." So you are adding a requirement that does not exist. We have true prophets today, and you have again ignored that the prophesies of the latter day kingdom did not mention a reboot. As for current revelations, Joseph was accused of being a fallen prophet because he did not publish new sections of the Doctrine and Covenants near the end of his life. That is because, as I stated earlier but you ignored, all of the ordinances, authority, and doctrine necessary to establish the Church were restored. The Lord said that in ordinances of the Priesthood is the power of Godliness manifest, not in publishing new revelations to satisfy itching ears. Do all members of the Church seriously study the Book of Mormon as we have been counseled to do daily? Do they search the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price for understanding? Have we really done what needs to be done to receive additional scripture as a people? I would submit that we have not. Though the Lord has opened up many great and wonderful insights to me and others through our personal study, as a whole, there is no justification for new revelation when the previous revelation has been left largely unstudied. That isn't to say there has not been new prophesy and revelation from time to time. We had the revelation ending plural marriage, the revelation providing the Priesthood to all worthy members, the revelation concerning the work taking place in the spirit world, and most recently the Proclamation on the Family. That came out just prior to the world trying to re-define what marriages and families are, and will be of great benefit to show what our deeply held religious beliefs are. It also prophesies of what will happen to nations that do not support the family. So, just because you don't see the revelations, doesn't mean they aren't there. And just because they aren't happening all the time, doesn't mean the Church is in apostasy either, as Joseph was accused of the same thing.

One must be given keys to organize the Church. The Lord gave those keys to Joseph Smith and the Apostles, and they have held them ever since. There is no scriptural authority that anyone can "wrest" the keys from them, especially one who had no keys in the first place. Any fraud can say "Thus saith the Lord" and Christ mentioned some of those, that they would claim to have done many marvelous things in His name. What was His retort. "I never knew you." Denver Snuffer is a fraud. All who follow him are deceived.

I have responded point by point to your arguments with scriptures and sound reason. You turn things upside down. Why you say I ignore your arguments is false on its face. You're continuing to say things that aren't true or inaccurate. I detect no spirit of humility from you.

And the fact that you say this exposes you: "The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth."

This is your opinion. Do you acknowledge this? We have not a translated Zion, and the pattern has stopped? You can't point to a scripture that says a "church" in Daniel. Joseph said the "truth" will go forth. DC 13 says the priesthood will never be taken from the earth, but it's tradition that morphs these statements or prophecies into "a Church". It is a fact that a translated Zion has not been established. Not even close. I've given you 5 facts of apostasy which are confirmable facts. UD abounds. Censorhip abounds. Priestcraft abounds. You look the other way at your own peril.

I'm wired up very differently than you. I succumb to truth. That's how I accepted the BoM in the first place. If somebody approached me with the 5 evidences of apostasy I've listed, I would have to admit they have a point with each one. I might say as a TBM:

1) Yeah, you're right, it's true, since man is fallible, it's possible the president of the church could at least theoretically err and therefore lead us astray. I don't believe that's the case, but it's at least possible. Otherwise I sound like a true blue Catholic who believes in an inerrant pope, despite mounds of evidence against that notion.
2) About the addition of WW's excerpts in OD 1 in 1981, holy cow! I didn't know that!! That can't be true. Why wasn't there a church vote? Why wasn't there any announcement? I'll have to research that one!
3) The fact that Elder Poelman refilmed his talk and the church spliced the new part into the original. That is weird! No announcement? Even weirder! As far the content of the new talk trying to blur the distinction between the Brethren and Christ...I can't argue -- that is a fact. That's exactly what it does. But I'm sure there has to be a good reason.
4) You're right about the The BoM Introduction's last paragraph. I can see it with my own eyes. And I can't argue with the plain logic that because the Holy Ghost testifies the BoM is true, that doesn't mean presidents of the Church subsequent to Joseph Smith are true. A witness of the Spirit does mean JOSEPH was a true prophet, but not later presidents. I can't find fault with the basic, sound logic brought forth.
5) I have to agree, if a sincere member asks sincere questions about the above 4 things in Church, that the questions would not be warmly welcomed by most leaders. They'd say that member is doubting. There wouldn't be a genuine conversation seeking for truth and understanding because very quickly somebody would say, "What are you saying? Do you think the Church is apostate? That can't be true. So why are you even asking the question!?" BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 4 EVIDENCES? "Put them out of your mind right now! The Church can never apostatize." BUT..."Now, come on. You're not going to argue with a keys-holding priesthood leader, are you? The church is true." BUT WHAT ABOUT..."You're starting to sound apostate! Fall in line!"

Or, you could ask, knock, and seek, and see what the Lord will teach you.

Cover up of truth and expelling the humble and meek are tactics of the Adversary. The Lord says, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood..."

I could give you 10 more MAJOR, blockbuster evidences of Apostasy, but I'm guessing you all (NONE OF YOU) want to hear it. Would I be correct?

Prove me wrong, but I'm quite confident you don't want to hear more evidences. You justify putting your fingers in your ears because "the Church is true" and that is the false premise you will use to defend any and all evidences of apostasy. The Sanhedrin did the same thing. They knew they were right. And they killed the Son of God.

That's why you guys (except for one humble soul -- BackBlast) refused to even answer the question, "If the Lord chose and sent a TRUE outsider prophet, and the Brethren denounced that true prophet, would you receive that prophet?" You all are on record above as refusing to answer the question because of your unbelief. "That would never happen," you say. "That would mean the Church is apostate and that can not happen!" And yet, Jesus came as an outsider prophet. It did happen. And could happen, if it hasn't already. The fact that you would reject such a prophet means you would have rejected Jesus just like most of the Jews did.

Dude, anti mormons have thousands of points against us. You adding 5 or 10, no big deal. Just more bunk. Silly kid, bunk is for unbelievers.

I'm not anti Mormon. And the stuff I'm listing isn't "anti Mormon" material. They're just facts. Facts is facts. Is Moroni, the son of Mormon, "anti Mormon" when he says:

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?

You're now saying it's anti Mormon to make the case against priestcraft.

Speaking of us, Nephi said:

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away; they have become corrupted.

12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

This is anti Mormon? Is it a heresy to quote scripture now?

Nephi and Moroni says the holy church of God has become corrupted (i.e., APOSTATIZED). I show evidence. You ignore it.

I'm okay with that. To each his own.

[RAB]

RAB,

We agree on 2 things:

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

So you essentially have no good arguments against my arguments, but in typical fashion raise new ones. Very well. I will address those as well.

1) Sacred history proves this pattern: restoration and then apostasy, and then back to restoration. This repeats. With the notable exceptions of Enoch and Melchizedek.

The difference is you think the pattern has stopped. And yet we don't have Zion and your revered "prophets" through all these years haven't had success in establishing it. Your belief contradicts history. If you believe it has stopped, I ask where is the Enoch or Melchizedek of our day?

The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth. While the other apostasies were prophesied about, there was no prophesy about the latter-day Church going into apostasy. So it is your premise that actually goes against history. Furthermore, the Church is just as Nephi prophesied, relatively small in number compared to the whole earth but fills the whole earth. Zion is being built day by day, person by person throughout the Stakes of the world as people decide to change and become better people. The story isn't over yet, and the millenium hasn't happened yet, so your argument about the Church failing in its purpose is ludicrous since it is just as Nephi decribed it would be prior to the millenium.

2) We believe in the value and even necessity of true prophets, or a legal administrator, a "thus saith the Lord" messenger. This is pure Mormon doctrine that we both wholeheartedly embrace.

The difference is your revered prophets do not say "thus saith the Lord," whereas the one I believe is a prophet that does say boldly, "thus saith the Lord." I'm choosing that phrase for effect. What revelation have your "prophets" produced? Just one please.

First of all, there is no requirement to say, "Thus saith the Lord" every time they say something...unless the Lord tells them they should say "Thus saith the Lord." Joseph addressed this issue early in the Church, and the Lord did as well by saying "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." So you are adding a requirement that does not exist. We have true prophets today, and you have again ignored that the prophesies of the latter day kingdom did not mention a reboot. As for current revelations, Joseph was accused of being a fallen prophet because he did not publish new sections of the Doctrine and Covenants near the end of his life. That is because, as I stated earlier but you ignored, all of the ordinances, authority, and doctrine necessary to establish the Church were restored. The Lord said that in ordinances of the Priesthood is the power of Godliness manifest, not in publishing new revelations to satisfy itching ears. Do all members of the Church seriously study the Book of Mormon as we have been counseled to do daily? Do they search the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price for understanding? Have we really done what needs to be done to receive additional scripture as a people? I would submit that we have not. Though the Lord has opened up many great and wonderful insights to me and others through our personal study, as a whole, there is no justification for new revelation when the previous revelation has been left largely unstudied. That isn't to say there has not been new prophesy and revelation from time to time. We had the revelation ending plural marriage, the revelation providing the Priesthood to all worthy members, the revelation concerning the work taking place in the spirit world, and most recently the Proclamation on the Family. That came out just prior to the world trying to re-define what marriages and families are, and will be of great benefit to show what our deeply held religious beliefs are. It also prophesies of what will happen to nations that do not support the family. So, just because you don't see the revelations, doesn't mean they aren't there. And just because they aren't happening all the time, doesn't mean the Church is in apostasy either, as Joseph was accused of the same thing.

One must be given keys to organize the Church. The Lord gave those keys to Joseph Smith and the Apostles, and they have held them ever since. There is no scriptural authority that anyone can "wrest" the keys from them, especially one who had no keys in the first place. Any fraud can say "Thus saith the Lord" and Christ mentioned some of those, that they would claim to have done many marvelous things in His name. What was His retort. "I never knew you." Denver Snuffer is a fraud. All who follow him are deceived.

I have responded point by point to your arguments with scriptures and sound reason. You turn things upside down. Why you say I ignore your arguments is false on its face. You're continuing to say things that aren't true or inaccurate. I detect no spirit of humility from you.

And the fact that you say this exposes you: "The pattern has stopped, because as both Daniel, Joseph Smith, and others prophesied about the new Church, it would NEVER be taken from the earth."

This is your opinion. Do you acknowledge this? We have not a translated Zion, and the pattern has stopped? You can't point to a scripture that says a "church" in Daniel. Joseph said the "truth" will go forth. DC 13 says the priesthood will never be taken from the earth, but it's tradition that morphs these statements or prophecies into "a Church". It is a fact that a translated Zion has not been established. Not even close. I've given you 5 facts of apostasy which are confirmable facts. UD abounds. Censorhip abounds. Priestcraft abounds. You look the other way at your own peril.

I'm wired up very differently than you. I succumb to truth. That's how I accepted the BoM in the first place. If somebody approached me with the 5 evidences of apostasy I've listed, I would have to admit they have a point with each one. I might say as a TBM:

1) Yeah, you're right, it's true, since man is fallible, it's possible the president of the church could at least theoretically err and therefore lead us astray. I don't believe that's the case, but it's at least possible. Otherwise I sound like a true blue Catholic who believes in an inerrant pope, despite mounds of evidence against that notion.
2) About the addition of WW's excerpts in OD 1 in 1981, holy cow! I didn't know that!! That can't be true. Why wasn't there a church vote? Why wasn't there any announcement? I'll have to research that one!
3) The fact that Elder Poelman refilmed his talk and the church spliced the new part into the original. That is weird! No announcement? Even weirder! As far the content of the new talk trying to blur the distinction between the Brethren and Christ...I can't argue -- that is a fact. That's exactly what it does. But I'm sure there has to be a good reason.
4) You're right about the The BoM Introduction's last paragraph. I can see it with my own eyes. And I can't argue with the plain logic that because the Holy Ghost testifies the BoM is true, that doesn't mean presidents of the Church subsequent to Joseph Smith are true. A witness of the Spirit does mean JOSEPH was a true prophet, but not later presidents. I can't find fault with the basic, sound logic brought forth.
5) I have to agree, if a sincere member asks sincere questions about the above 4 things in Church, that the questions would not be warmly welcomed by most leaders. They'd say that member is doubting. There wouldn't be a genuine conversation seeking for truth and understanding because very quickly somebody would say, "What are you saying? Do you think the Church is apostate? That can't be true. So why are you even asking the question!?" BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 4 EVIDENCES? "Put them out of your mind right now! The Church can never apostatize." BUT..."Now, come on. You're not going to argue with a keys-holding priesthood leader, are you? The church is true." BUT WHAT ABOUT..."You're starting to sound apostate! Fall in line!"

Or, you could ask, knock, and seek, and see what the Lord will teach you.

Cover up of truth and expelling the humble and meek are tactics of the Adversary. The Lord says, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood..."

I could give you 10 more MAJOR, blockbuster evidences of Apostasy, but I'm guessing you all (NONE OF YOU) want to hear it. Would I be correct?

Prove me wrong, but I'm quite confident you don't want to hear more evidences. You justify putting your fingers in your ears because "the Church is true" and that is the false premise you will use to defend any and all evidences of apostasy. The Sanhedrin did the same thing. They knew they were right. And they killed the Son of God.

That's why you guys (except for one humble soul -- BackBlast) refused to even answer the question, "If the Lord chose and sent a TRUE outsider prophet, and the Brethren denounced that true prophet, would you receive that prophet?" You all are on record above as refusing to answer the question because of your unbelief. "That would never happen," you say. "That would mean the Church is apostate and that can not happen!" And yet, Jesus came as an outsider prophet. It did happen. And could happen, if it hasn't already. The fact that you would reject such a prophet means you would have rejected Jesus just like most of the Jews did.

I think we are done discussing because you have not answered my counterpoints. Thus the pattern is as follows:

You: Argument X, Y, and Z why the church is wrong.
Me: What about X1,X2, and X3? Y1, Y2, and Y3. Z1, Z2, and Z3?
You: You are confusing things. X, Y, and Z.

In other words, your circular reasoning and bootstrapping arguments make it impossible to have an intellectual discussion using the scriptures because you never respond to all the counterpoints with new points, just regurgitating the same points that have already been shown NOT to follow the pattern or prophecies in the scriptures.

You want people to doubt so that they can accept your premise. Only Satan would ask someone to doubt what the Lord had already revealed to them as truth so that they could accept the new sophistry.

From James 1:5-6: "5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

From Moroni 10: 4-5: "4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

From 1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

D&C 6:36 "Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not."

Mormon 9:27 "O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him."

1 Timothy 2:8 "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting."

Mormon 9:25 "And whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I confirm all my words, even unto the ends of the earth."

Your whole premise is that we should doubt what has been confirmed to us by the Spirit of God. Only Satan would ask that. You presume because we do not buy your garbage that we are not knocking and seeking. How arrogant can you be? On the contrary. Many are knocking and seeking and gaining further light and knowledge through the pattern the Lord has set in the scriptures, not through the twisted pattern you are trying to force on us forgetting that Christ's restored church was set up with 12 apostles, that Joseph prophesied the Saints would go the Rockies...points you have never been able to dispute. The Lord clearly established the Church with 12 apostles and gave them the keys to run the Church, and there is no evidence to prove that he removed the keys from His 12 apostles...and no your saying so isn't evidence. There has been no prophecy of a second apostasy with Daniel, in Nephi talking about the restoration of the Church, in the New Testament etc. They all prophesied of one restoration. No further apostasy. Is that a lack of humilty? No, you don't understand the plain meaning of the scriptures, even when the Lord warned of this very kind of thing in the Doctrine and Covenants about those claiming outside authority, and there being no scriptural basis to believe anyone claiming outside authority. Even Christ didn't claim outside authority. He was the Authority, the very Messiah who instituted the Mosaic Law, and thus fulfilled it. You asked for revelations, I gave them to you. You added no counterpoints. Your logic is circular. And thus, I think we probably don't have much else to talk about until you have seriously given responses to my counterpoints as I have done to yours with examples instead of just saying "you don't understand because you don't have the spirit like I do." No, I understand all to well, and to me it is so sad you cannot see how easily you have been duped into apostasy by a fraud with no authority. It is time for you to seriously consider that maybe you have been deceived by Satan, who can appear nigh unto an angel of light and is very good at mixing the philosophies of man with scripture.

[underdog]

Regarding agency and OD1. My comments in green.

God honors us by giving us agency to choose. Moses 4:3 shows that He didn't seek to interfere with Satan's plan to mislead billions of His children.

God knew in advance what Satan would do. He knew that Satan would attempt and indeed succeed in leading many people astray. In other words, it was "in the programme of the Lord" (to use WW's words) to let mass numbers of people be led astray. Father in Heaven did in fact "permit" it, her absolutely permitted us to be led astray. God's "programme" is to give us agency, to TOTALLY respect it, and let us choose, even if we choose darkness. He gives us free reign over our will, so that consequences will be completely just. THAT is His programme. And that's NOT what WW explained in his opinion that was added in 1981.

Think about the premortal world when Jesus and Lucifer were pitted against each other in a public setting. The stakes were high. God is on official record as allowing a full 33% of His children to be led astray! What a tremendous cost! Think about how devastating the casualties were. And with His foreknowledge, He knew what the catastrophic result of Satan's deception would be. And yet He let people decide for themselves. He truly did honor His children then by respecting their right to choose. He truly is a God of restraint. Even though he didn't want the result that occurred, which was a tremendous victory for Satan, He refused to interfere. He honors us by letting us decide. What a loving Father in Heaven!!!!! Even His Son, who wanted the bitter cup to pass, even He showed restraint. "Thy will be done," as he partook and finished drinking the bitter cup.

We are in complete agreement to this point.

So how could any member of the Church or Wilford Woodruff think God would change now and become a dictator, or encourage a dictatorship in the Church whereby He wouldn't allow men to lead people astray? He let Satan lead 1/3 of his children astray. Why not let the president of the Church?

This doesn't follow from the premortal example. If Wilford Woodruff had said "if I were to attempt that, God would smite me so that I could no longer deceive you, or I would be struck dumb, or in some other way forced to keep silent", then you might have something here. But he didn't say this. He said God would remove him out of his place. How then, do you believe God will do this or has done this? Perhaps one or all of the previous presidents were removed by death? WW isn't saying God will force the Presidents not to deceive. He's saying God will not allow them to do so and remain in their place. I agree that's what he's saying. And it is opinion that flies in the face of the purpose of our entire mortal probation. We are here to be tested. If it was so simple as to follow a man and we could trust him 100%, that abrogates free will. They would presumably still be free to go on deceiving after being removed, and D&C 43 leads me to believe that they would only have power to appoint another in their place. Christ warned there would be false prophets. They aren't removed. That's why Christ warned of them. Furthermore, he said they would LOOK like true prophets. Wolf in SHEEP'S CLOTHING. This implies deception, agreed? The Enemy will plant tares in with the wheat. Discernment is paramount. Christ even allowed Judas in among His 12 disciples.

Lucifer didn't go uncontested in his efforts. Those who held greater authority than he did condemned his words and actions. It was not a matter of debate between two potential prophets. Lucifer was opposed by and rebelled against God the Father and Jesus Christ. He didn't hold the highest office. Those who knew who to follow - who held true authority - were not deceived. Those who were confused about this were cast out. True. That's what happened. The confused ones were deceived. They liked what Satan was saying. There was safety in what Satan preached. Security is very appealing to most people.

Wilford Woodruff says that exactly the same thing would happen here if a President of the Church attempted to lead the people astray. God, the one who truly leads the church, would remove him from his place. Not silence him entirely. Not end his life on the spot. Not force him to speak only truth or prevent any deception on the part of the man whatsoever in any capacity. Only cast him out of his place, as he did Lucifer. Only ensure that his deceptions would be given as a rebel, not as a true prophet with authority to speak for God. I see no violation of agency in this, nor do I see any contradiction with the events of premortality. I believe you are missing one key observation. God the Father did not cast Lucifer out until after he had the opportunity to deceive. He ALLOWED the deception to occur. There was no casting out until the test was over. Do you concede this point? And on this point, we learn that in the last days that impostor apostles will be exposed too. DC 64:39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.

The reason is the exact reason why Lucifer was so successful. 1/3 of the people really LIKED the idea of a guarantee. "Not one soul shall be lost." This sounded very appealing to a third of us. "Hmmm, if I go with Lucifer's plan, I'll be saved and make it back! Heck yeah!"

WW and Satan seek to destroy the agency of man by making guarantees. WW said the Lord would NEVER permit the Church to be led astray. Satan promised he'd never fail and everyone who followed him would be saved.

I already addressed this guarantee thing elsewhere, but I wanted to add that Christ also promises that everyone who follows him will be saved. The gospel is built on guarantees. We couldn't exercise faith in God's promises if they weren't guarantees. The difference is that Satan had no authority to make his guarantee, nor power to bring it to pass.
I see. Seems like what you're saying is true. God does make promises. Promises themselves aren't inherently evil. I've not read your other comments yet, but will. Thanks for the correction. Let me rephrase then. WW's opinion (and it was his opinion by the way. He never said the Lord told him to say that) that the Lord would never permit the president to lead the church astray is Satanic because the idea requires you to abandon your own agency. How? If the president can't lead you astray, then you MUST follow him. Do you see? If you don't follow him, then you're apostate. If you do follow him, then you're safe. You'll be saved as long as you follow the president. Free will is attacked because we feel compelled, by the false promise that he can't lead us astray, to follow him. No power or influence can or ought to maintained by virtue of the priesthood. Perhaps you could help me say it more accurately?

Finally, you mentioned that another facet of this evidence was the way it was brought into OD1 - without a vote and without announcement. I can only assume that what you're asserting in the background here is something like "if the church were led by a true prophet, there definitely would have been a vote, or at least an announcement". I don't see the evidence for that claim. Care to elaborate, or to correct my understanding of your claim? I'll be happy to elaborate. I spent some time looking back at April and Oct 1981 General Conferences, reading through the transcripts and talks. That's the year the churchwide-apostasy-inducing WW excerpts were added. There were no announcements of the excerpts being added in GC. No vote (as was done with Lectures on Faith btw). The ONLY reference I could find was an Ensign article (see https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the- ... n?lang=eng). But even in the article it's just mentioned in passing. See for yourself. The author of the article (some obscure admin asst from the Missionary Dept) explained, "The new additions to the text are...excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto..." I've detailed this in an above post if you care to look back. Found it: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12435&p=790981&hili ... ng#p790981

Arandur, very nice comments. Thank you. Your comments help me clarify thoughts in my own mind. Please see my replies above in blue text.

[RAB]

Speaking of us, Nephi said:

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away; they have become corrupted.

12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

This is anti Mormon? Is it a heresy to quote scripture now?

Nephi and Moroni says the holy church of God has become corrupted (i.e., APOSTATIZED). I show evidence. You ignore it.

I'm okay with that. To each his own.

That was Nephi talking about the great and abominable Church, not the restored Church. Again a scripture taken out of context.

[RAB]

I already addressed this guarantee thing elsewhere, but I wanted to add that Christ also promises that everyone who follows him will be saved. The gospel is built on guarantees. We couldn't exercise faith in God's promises if they weren't guarantees. The difference is that Satan had no authority to make his guarantee, nor power to bring it to pass.
I see. Seems like what you're saying is true. God does make promises. Promises themselves aren't inherently evil. I've not read your other comments yet, but will. Thanks for the correction. Let me rephrase then. WW's opinion (and it was his opinion by the way. He never said the Lord told him to say that) that the Lord would never permit the president to lead the church astray is Satanic because the idea requires you to abandon your own agency. How? If the president can't lead you astray, then you MUST follow him. Do you see? If you don't follow him, then you're apostate. If you do follow him, then you're safe. You'll be saved as long as you follow the president. Free will is attacked because we feel compelled, by the false promise that he can't lead us astray, to follow him. No power or influence can or ought to maintained by virtue of the priesthood. Perhaps you could help me say it more accurately?

Arandur, very nice comments. Thank you. Your comments help me clarify thoughts in my own mind. Please see my replies above in blue text.
[/quote]

The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, says that if we receive his servants, we receive the Lord, if we receive the Lord, we receive the Father, and if we receive the Father, we receive all that the father hath. Does that also deprive man of agency? Of course it does not. And neither does your argument that not allowing the Prophet to lead us astray deprives man of agency. Man can choose to follow the prophet or Christ or choose not to. Therein lies the agency. However man cannot choose to not follow the prophet (whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same) or Christ and expect to still be in good standing with the Lord. Yes, that person is then an apostate. Freedom from the consequences of our actions is not agency, but that seems to be what you are peddling.

[Rensai]

This is an interesting thread. I'll just add a couple quick points I think might be worth considering.

First, I somewhat agree and disagree with underdog about WW's declaration. I agree that WW does seem to be using the same kind of false promise Satan did, its dishonest at best. I do not agree that it is violating anyone's agency because unlike Satan, WW or any other church president, can't actually make any of us follow him. We still have agency to follow the church leaders or not as we see fit regardless of what they preach. If the members choose to believe that, then they aren't studying history or reading their scriptures like they should. That's on them.

Secondly, I'll just point out that I can think of at least 3 issues off the top of my head that WW himself misled the church on, so the statement is clearly false and should not be treated as prophetic in any way. There are probably more, but WW promised polygamy would never be taken from the church at conferences prior to OD1, he upheld the priesthood ban on blacks, and he openly taught the false doctrine of BY that Adam is God. All 3 of those things have since been thoroughly discredited and he definitely misled the church on them in his day. He also perjured himself in a court of law during the temple lot case.

So if I could ask some questions about OD1 to the leaders I'd want to ask why OD1 is in the scriptures at all after at least parts of it are demonstrably false, and why do they continue to reiterate this false promise that the prophet cannot lead us astray, when BY, WW himself, and several others have done exactly that at times and were not removed. In fact, God gives us a process to remove the presiding high priest (president of the church) in D&C. Why did he give us this process if he was going to do all the work and take care of it himself? Did he just give us this process to waste everyone's time with a revelation we would never need to use? Or, have we simply become so lazy we would rather ignore that responsibility and not have to do the work it entails to compare the leaders' words and actions to the scriptures and determine if they are leading us astray or not.

[Rensai]

However man cannot choose to not follow the prophet (whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same) or Christ and expect to still be in good standing with the Lord. Yes, that person is then an apostate. Freedom from the consequences of our actions is not agency, but that seems to be what you are peddling.

You just quoted one of the scriptures so often misused in the church today. It drive me nuts and I just have to correct that. When God says, "whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same" he is NOT saying that everything said by a prophet is his words, that's absurd and easily dis-proven. Joseph Smith spoke several times about how bad it is to be blind followers who take everything he says as God's word. No, what that scripture actually means when you read it in context, is that when the prophet is truly giving a revelation from God, then it is the same as if God had spoken himself. The reason that is true should be pretty obvious. When a prophet speaks a revelation word for word from God, it is literally God's words. The prophet is much like an answering machine in that instance or a messenger repeating God verbatim. In no way does that mean God is endorsing or claiming that every word out of the mouth of a prophet is his.

Add an extra verse to that quote to get some context and see what I mean.

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

See what he's saying? He's saying the words in D&C that he gave to Joseph are his words even though they were spoken by his servant Joseph. He is NOT saying all words of all successors of Joseph or even that all words of Joseph himself are God's words. Only the words God gave through revelation are covered in that statement.

[RAB]

This is an interesting thread. I'll just add a couple quick points I think might be worth considering.

First, I somewhat agree and disagree with underdog about WW's declaration. I agree that WW does seem to be using the same kind of false promise Satan did, its dishonest at best. I do not agree that it is violating anyone's agency because unlike Satan, WW or any other church president, can't actually make any of us follow him. We still have agency to follow the church leaders or not as we see fit regardless of what they preach. If the members choose to believe that, then they aren't studying history or reading their scriptures like they should. That's on them.

Secondly, I'll just point out that I can think of at least 3 issues off the top of my head that WW himself misled the church on, so the statement is clearly false and should not be treated as prophetic in any way. There are probably more, but WW promised polygamy would never be taken from the church at conferences prior to OD1, he upheld the priesthood ban on blacks, and he openly taught the false doctrine of BY that Adam is God. All 3 of those things have since been thoroughly discredited and he definitely misled the church on them in his day. He also perjured himself in a court of law during the temple lot case.

So if I could ask some questions about OD1 to the leaders I'd want to ask why OD1 is in the scriptures at all after at least parts of it are demonstrably false, and why do they continue to reiterate this false promise that the prophet cannot lead us astray, when BY, WW himself, and several others have done exactly that at times and were not removed. In fact, God gives us a process to remove the presiding high priest (president of the church) in D&C. Why did he give us this process if he was going to do all the work and take care of it himself? Did he just give us this process to waste everyone's time with a revelation we would never need to use? Or, have we simply become so lazy we would rather ignore that responsibility and not have to do the work it entails to compare the leaders' words and actions to the scriptures and determine if they are leading us astray or not.

I think there is a difference between a prophet not being infallible and sharing gospel opinions that are speculations and turn out not to be correct, and one who leads the Church into apostasy. I fully accept that Prophets can share gospel speculation that is not correct. Peter had the opinion that their preaching should only go to the Jews, even though Paul tried to convince him otherwise. However, once the Lord revealed his will, Peter didn't question it. He moved the Church forward. Likewise, I believe the bretheren thought polygamy was going to be the rule for the Church as part of the restoration, instead of recognizing it for what it really was, the exception to the rule of monagamy. No one was lead into apostasy by following the prophets. Even the Adam-God theory, which is of dubious origin, could simply be classified as gospel speculation, which many of the early bretheren of the Church were prone to do. Joseph himself did not claim to be free from error. I believe that is why the Church came out with the statement that not every statement made by someone in authority is considered Church doctrine, but only those statements that are made repeatedly and commonly accepted by those in authority or found in the scriptures are considered the Doctrine of the Church. Notice how the General Authorities today do much less gospel speculating than in the past? With the advent of the internet and the fodder it becomes for the anti-mormon crowd, I have no doubt that the Lord calls men who are a little more circumspect in what they say from the pulpit, ensuring that it is grounded in doctrine and not speculation.

Where does that lead us? I draw three conclusions:
1. By being lead astray, it is meant lead into apostasy, not simple errors of gospel speculation or policy.
2. Prophets, apostles, and other GA's are not infallible, nor does our doctrine state they are infallible. They can make mistakes in gospel speculation, or in other issues, but those mistakes do not lead the Church into apostasy, meaning the Lord takes his keys from the Church. He is most patient with his fallible servants.
3. If ever a prophet was going to lead the Church into apostasy, that person would be removed.

Anyway, that is how I feel about the matter. Prophets speak for the Lord when they speak for the Lord, not everything that comes from their mouth. And I don't believe they are shown everything, so they wonder and speculate like the rest of us do. More recent prophets tend to speculate less from the pulpit, however. And for that I am grateful. I have a hard enough time keeping up with what the doctrine already is.

[RAB]

However man cannot choose to not follow the prophet (whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same) or Christ and expect to still be in good standing with the Lord. Yes, that person is then an apostate. Freedom from the consequences of our actions is not agency, but that seems to be what you are peddling.

You just quoted one of the scriptures so often misused in the church today. It drive me nuts and I just have to correct that. When God says, "whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same" he is NOT saying that everything said by a prophet is his words, that's absurd and easily dis-proven. Joseph Smith spoke several times about how bad it is to be blind followers who take everything he says as God's word. No, what that scripture actually means when you read it in context, is that when the prophet is truly giving a revelation from God, then it is the same as if God had spoken himself. The reason that is true should be pretty obvious. When a prophet speaks a revelation word for word from God, it is literally God's words. The prophet is much like an answering machine in that instance or a messenger repeating God verbatim. In no way does that mean God is endorsing or claiming that every word out of the mouth of a prophet is his.

Add an extra verse to that quote to get some context and see what I mean.

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

See what he's saying? He's saying the words in D&C that he gave to Joseph are his words even though they were spoken by his servant Joseph. He is NOT saying all words of all successors of Joseph or even that all words of Joseph himself are God's words. Only the words God gave through revelation are covered in that statement.

I think we are in violent agreement on that. You just didn't have the benefit of seeing my next post (the one above this one). My issue with underdog is that he thinks in order to have agency a prophet must have the ability to lead the Church into apostasy. I reject that because I do not believe that is part of the Lord's plan, is nowhere found in the scriptures, and because so far it hasn't happened--at least that is what the Holy Ghost has told me. The keys are still here, even though some bretheren have made some mistakes. That is nothing new. It happened to Peter. It can happen to any leader.

[Rensai]

This is an interesting thread. I'll just add a couple quick points I think might be worth considering.

First, I somewhat agree and disagree with underdog about WW's declaration. I agree that WW does seem to be using the same kind of false promise Satan did, its dishonest at best. I do not agree that it is violating anyone's agency because unlike Satan, WW or any other church president, can't actually make any of us follow him. We still have agency to follow the church leaders or not as we see fit regardless of what they preach. If the members choose to believe that, then they aren't studying history or reading their scriptures like they should. That's on them.

Secondly, I'll just point out that I can think of at least 3 issues off the top of my head that WW himself misled the church on, so the statement is clearly false and should not be treated as prophetic in any way. There are probably more, but WW promised polygamy would never be taken from the church at conferences prior to OD1, he upheld the priesthood ban on blacks, and he openly taught the false doctrine of BY that Adam is God. All 3 of those things have since been thoroughly discredited and he definitely misled the church on them in his day. He also perjured himself in a court of law during the temple lot case.

So if I could ask some questions about OD1 to the leaders I'd want to ask why OD1 is in the scriptures at all after at least parts of it are demonstrably false, and why do they continue to reiterate this false promise that the prophet cannot lead us astray, when BY, WW himself, and several others have done exactly that at times and were not removed. In fact, God gives us a process to remove the presiding high priest (president of the church) in D&C. Why did he give us this process if he was going to do all the work and take care of it himself? Did he just give us this process to waste everyone's time with a revelation we would never need to use? Or, have we simply become so lazy we would rather ignore that responsibility and not have to do the work it entails to compare the leaders' words and actions to the scriptures and determine if they are leading us astray or not.

I think there is a difference between a prophet not being infallible and sharing gospel opinions that are speculations and turn out not to be correct, and one who leads the Church into apostasy. I fully accept that Prophets can share gospel speculation that is not correct. Peter had the opinion that their preaching should only go to the Jews, even though Paul tried to convince him otherwise. However, once the Lord revealed his will, Peter didn't question it. He moved the Church forward. Likewise, I believe the bretheren thought polygamy was going to be the rule for the Church as part of the restoration, instead of recognizing it for what it really was, the exception to the rule of monagamy. No one was lead into apostasy by following the prophets. Even the Adam-God theory, which is of dubious origin, could simply be classified as gospel speculation, which many of the early bretheren of the Church were prone to do. Joseph himself did not claim to be free from error. I believe that is why the Church came out with the statement that not every statement made by someone in authority is considered Church doctrine, but only those statements that are made repeatedly and commonly accepted by those in authority or found in the scriptures are considered the Doctrine of the Church. Notice how the General Authorities today do much less gospel speculating than in the past? With the advent of the internet and the fodder it becomes for the anti-mormon crowd, I have no doubt that the Lord calls men who are a little more circumspect in what they say from the pulpit, ensuring that it is grounded in doctrine and not speculation.

Where does that lead us? I draw three conclusions:
1. By being lead astray, it is meant lead into apostasy, not simple errors of gospel speculation or policy.
2. Prophets, apostles, and other GA's are not infallible, nor does our doctrine state they are infallible. They can make mistakes in gospel speculation, or in other issues, but those mistakes do not lead the Church into apostasy, meaning the Lord takes his keys from the Church. He is most patient with his fallible servants.
3. If ever a prophet was going to lead the Church into apostasy, that person would be removed.

Anyway, that is how I feel about the matter. Prophets speak for the Lord when they speak for the Lord, not everything that comes from their mouth. And I don't believe they are shown everything, so they wonder and speculate like the rest of us do. More recent prophets tend to speculate less from the pulpit, however. And for that I am grateful. I have a hard enough time keeping up with what the doctrine already is.

Yeah in the past I would have agreed with you but there are some problems. First, your changing WW words from astray to apostasy, second, there is D&C 107. In addition, we have statements from Joseph Smith, scriptural examples, etc.

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

Why talk about removing the president of the High priesthood (president of the church) for transgressions if God isn't going to let them lead anyone astray ever?

[underdog]

This is an interesting thread. I'll just add a couple quick points I think might be worth considering.

First, I somewhat agree and disagree with underdog about WW's declaration. I agree that WW does seem to be using the same kind of false promise Satan did, its dishonest at best. I do not agree that it is violating anyone's agency because unlike Satan, WW or any other church president, can't actually make any of us follow him. We still have agency to follow the church leaders or not as we see fit regardless of what they preach. If the members choose to believe that, then they aren't studying history or reading their scriptures like they should. That's on them.

Secondly, I'll just point out that I can think of at least 3 issues off the top of my head that WW himself misled the church on, so the statement is clearly false and should not be treated as prophetic in any way. There are probably more, but WW promised polygamy would never be taken from the church at conferences prior to OD1, he upheld the priesthood ban on blacks, and he openly taught the false doctrine of BY that Adam is God. All 3 of those things have since been thoroughly discredited and he definitely misled the church on them in his day. He also perjured himself in a court of law during the temple lot case.

So if I could ask some questions about OD1 to the leaders I'd want to ask why OD1 is in the scriptures at all after at least parts of it are demonstrably false, and why do they continue to reiterate this false promise that the prophet cannot lead us astray, when BY, WW himself, and several others have done exactly that at times and were not removed. In fact, God gives us a process to remove the presiding high priest (president of the church) in D&C. Why did he give us this process if he was going to do all the work and take care of it himself? Did he just give us this process to waste everyone's time with a revelation we would never need to use? Or, have we simply become so lazy we would rather ignore that responsibility and not have to do the work it entails to compare the leaders' words and actions to the scriptures and determine if they are leading us astray or not.

I think there is a difference between a prophet not being infallible and sharing gospel opinions that are speculations and turn out not to be correct, and one who leads the Church into apostasy. I fully accept that Prophets can share gospel speculation that is not correct. Peter had the opinion that their preaching should only go to the Jews, even though Paul tried to convince him otherwise. However, once the Lord revealed his will, Peter didn't question it. He moved the Church forward. Likewise, I believe the bretheren thought polygamy was going to be the rule for the Church as part of the restoration, instead of recognizing it for what it really was, the exception to the rule of monagamy. No one was lead into apostasy by following the prophets. Even the Adam-God theory, which is of dubious origin, could simply be classified as gospel speculation, which many of the early bretheren of the Church were prone to do. Joseph himself did not claim to be free from error. I believe that is why the Church came out with the statement that not every statement made by someone in authority is considered Church doctrine, but only those statements that are made repeatedly and commonly accepted by those in authority or found in the scriptures are considered the Doctrine of the Church. Notice how the General Authorities today do much less gospel speculating than in the past? With the advent of the internet and the fodder it becomes for the anti-mormon crowd, I have no doubt that the Lord calls men who are a little more circumspect in what they say from the pulpit, ensuring that it is grounded in doctrine and not speculation.

Where does that lead us? I draw three conclusions:
1. By being lead astray, it is meant lead into apostasy, not simple errors of gospel speculation or policy. Pres WW did a complete 180 reversal. Which was true? Polygamy was essential for exaltation, or it wasn't? The wrong teaching leads the church astray from exaltation (if that's not apostasy than I don't know what is). Case closed.
2. Prophets, apostles, and other GA's are not infallible, nor does our doctrine state they are infallible. They can make mistakes in gospel speculation, or in other issues, but those mistakes do not lead the Church into apostasy, meaning the Lord takes his keys from the Church. He is most patient with his fallible servants. Glad you clarify that they're fallible. That's a start and is actually a concession that they CAN lead people astray (though you won't officially admit to the concession). But DC 121 answers the question as to how priesthood keys are lost. It is no mystery:

...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. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God...No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood...

Furthermore, "almost ALL men" commit unrighteous dominion so we should be at least be very vigilant for UD, when the Lord says just about everyone is guilty of it.
3. If ever a prophet was going to lead the Church into apostasy, that person would be removed. That's just your opinion, as it was Wilford Woodruff's opinion too. But it's false. God allowed Satan to deceive BILLIONS of children in the premortal realms. He will therefore allow Satan to deceive a few million here.

Anyway, that is how I feel about the matter. Prophets speak for the Lord when they speak for the Lord, not everything that comes from their mouth. And I don't believe they are shown everything, so they wonder and speculate like the rest of us do. More recent prophets tend to speculate less from the pulpit, however. And for that I am grateful. I have a hard enough time keeping up with what the doctrine already is.

My comments in blue.

[RAB]

This is an interesting thread. I'll just add a couple quick points I think might be worth considering.

First, I somewhat agree and disagree with underdog about WW's declaration. I agree that WW does seem to be using the same kind of false promise Satan did, its dishonest at best. I do not agree that it is violating anyone's agency because unlike Satan, WW or any other church president, can't actually make any of us follow him. We still have agency to follow the church leaders or not as we see fit regardless of what they preach. If the members choose to believe that, then they aren't studying history or reading their scriptures like they should. That's on them.

Secondly, I'll just point out that I can think of at least 3 issues off the top of my head that WW himself misled the church on, so the statement is clearly false and should not be treated as prophetic in any way. There are probably more, but WW promised polygamy would never be taken from the church at conferences prior to OD1, he upheld the priesthood ban on blacks, and he openly taught the false doctrine of BY that Adam is God. All 3 of those things have since been thoroughly discredited and he definitely misled the church on them in his day. He also perjured himself in a court of law during the temple lot case.

So if I could ask some questions about OD1 to the leaders I'd want to ask why OD1 is in the scriptures at all after at least parts of it are demonstrably false, and why do they continue to reiterate this false promise that the prophet cannot lead us astray, when BY, WW himself, and several others have done exactly that at times and were not removed. In fact, God gives us a process to remove the presiding high priest (president of the church) in D&C. Why did he give us this process if he was going to do all the work and take care of it himself? Did he just give us this process to waste everyone's time with a revelation we would never need to use? Or, have we simply become so lazy we would rather ignore that responsibility and not have to do the work it entails to compare the leaders' words and actions to the scriptures and determine if they are leading us astray or not.

I think there is a difference between a prophet not being infallible and sharing gospel opinions that are speculations and turn out not to be correct, and one who leads the Church into apostasy. I fully accept that Prophets can share gospel speculation that is not correct. Peter had the opinion that their preaching should only go to the Jews, even though Paul tried to convince him otherwise. However, once the Lord revealed his will, Peter didn't question it. He moved the Church forward. Likewise, I believe the bretheren thought polygamy was going to be the rule for the Church as part of the restoration, instead of recognizing it for what it really was, the exception to the rule of monagamy. No one was lead into apostasy by following the prophets. Even the Adam-God theory, which is of dubious origin, could simply be classified as gospel speculation, which many of the early bretheren of the Church were prone to do. Joseph himself did not claim to be free from error. I believe that is why the Church came out with the statement that not every statement made by someone in authority is considered Church doctrine, but only those statements that are made repeatedly and commonly accepted by those in authority or found in the scriptures are considered the Doctrine of the Church. Notice how the General Authorities today do much less gospel speculating than in the past? With the advent of the internet and the fodder it becomes for the anti-mormon crowd, I have no doubt that the Lord calls men who are a little more circumspect in what they say from the pulpit, ensuring that it is grounded in doctrine and not speculation.

Where does that lead us? I draw three conclusions:
1. By being lead astray, it is meant lead into apostasy, not simple errors of gospel speculation or policy.
2. Prophets, apostles, and other GA's are not infallible, nor does our doctrine state they are infallible. They can make mistakes in gospel speculation, or in other issues, but those mistakes do not lead the Church into apostasy, meaning the Lord takes his keys from the Church. He is most patient with his fallible servants.
3. If ever a prophet was going to lead the Church into apostasy, that person would be removed.

Anyway, that is how I feel about the matter. Prophets speak for the Lord when they speak for the Lord, not everything that comes from their mouth. And I don't believe they are shown everything, so they wonder and speculate like the rest of us do. More recent prophets tend to speculate less from the pulpit, however. And for that I am grateful. I have a hard enough time keeping up with what the doctrine already is.

Yeah in the past I would have agreed with you but there are some problems. First, your changing WW words from astray to apostasy, second, there is D&C 107. In addition, we have statements from Joseph Smith, scriptural examples, etc.

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

Why talk about removing the president of the High priesthood (president of the church) for transgressions if God isn't going to let them lead anyone astray ever?

I don't think the two quotes are talking about the exact same thing. The first talks about leading astray, the second talks about a prophet's transgressions. A prophet can have incorrect gospel speculation that is not considered a transgression worthy of removal. So, we have to interpret astray to mean something. When is someone lead astray? I think just because a person in authority states an opinion that is not correct does not mean that those who hear, and maybe even believe it are lead astray? Being lead astray, to me, requires some action beyond mere belief of incorrect statements, some change that would cause a person's salvation to be in peril. That is why I think astray is referring to apostasy, not simply an incorrect statement that some might believe. The Lord is not going to judge us on the number of incorrect statements we believed. He will judge us on how we acted in accordance with our knowledge. If my father tells me the earth is flat, fine. If I start acting on it to my detriment, then I think he would have lead me astray. But I have never acted on it at all. Nothing I have done has depended on the earth being flat or round...at least, not to my knowledge. So just because the Bretheren may have an incorrect opinion does not mean they have lead anyone astray when there is no action that comes from it. Otherwise, all parents are leading their kids astray anytime we have a wrong opinion we share with our kids. I think there has to be more to it than that, which is why I think astray really means leading the Lord's children in a way that puts their salvation in peril or in other words apostasy from the correct path. I don't think the Lord will ever let his prophet lead the Church into apostasy. I think a prophet could engage in other transgression that would require his removal, as Section 107 indicates, but I don't think it is in the Lord's program to let them lead the Church into apostasy. There is no scriptural basis where that has ever happened, and while we have been warned about false prophets, we have never been warned that our true prophets could turn and lead the Church into apostasy.

[RAB]

This is an interesting thread. I'll just add a couple quick points I think might be worth considering.

First, I somewhat agree and disagree with underdog about WW's declaration. I agree that WW does seem to be using the same kind of false promise Satan did, its dishonest at best. I do not agree that it is violating anyone's agency because unlike Satan, WW or any other church president, can't actually make any of us follow him. We still have agency to follow the church leaders or not as we see fit regardless of what they preach. If the members choose to believe that, then they aren't studying history or reading their scriptures like they should. That's on them.

Secondly, I'll just point out that I can think of at least 3 issues off the top of my head that WW himself misled the church on, so the statement is clearly false and should not be treated as prophetic in any way. There are probably more, but WW promised polygamy would never be taken from the church at conferences prior to OD1, he upheld the priesthood ban on blacks, and he openly taught the false doctrine of BY that Adam is God. All 3 of those things have since been thoroughly discredited and he definitely misled the church on them in his day. He also perjured himself in a court of law during the temple lot case.

So if I could ask some questions about OD1 to the leaders I'd want to ask why OD1 is in the scriptures at all after at least parts of it are demonstrably false, and why do they continue to reiterate this false promise that the prophet cannot lead us astray, when BY, WW himself, and several others have done exactly that at times and were not removed. In fact, God gives us a process to remove the presiding high priest (president of the church) in D&C. Why did he give us this process if he was going to do all the work and take care of it himself? Did he just give us this process to waste everyone's time with a revelation we would never need to use? Or, have we simply become so lazy we would rather ignore that responsibility and not have to do the work it entails to compare the leaders' words and actions to the scriptures and determine if they are leading us astray or not.

I think there is a difference between a prophet not being infallible and sharing gospel opinions that are speculations and turn out not to be correct, and one who leads the Church into apostasy. I fully accept that Prophets can share gospel speculation that is not correct. Peter had the opinion that their preaching should only go to the Jews, even though Paul tried to convince him otherwise. However, once the Lord revealed his will, Peter didn't question it. He moved the Church forward. Likewise, I believe the bretheren thought polygamy was going to be the rule for the Church as part of the restoration, instead of recognizing it for what it really was, the exception to the rule of monagamy. No one was lead into apostasy by following the prophets. Even the Adam-God theory, which is of dubious origin, could simply be classified as gospel speculation, which many of the early bretheren of the Church were prone to do. Joseph himself did not claim to be free from error. I believe that is why the Church came out with the statement that not every statement made by someone in authority is considered Church doctrine, but only those statements that are made repeatedly and commonly accepted by those in authority or found in the scriptures are considered the Doctrine of the Church. Notice how the General Authorities today do much less gospel speculating than in the past? With the advent of the internet and the fodder it becomes for the anti-mormon crowd, I have no doubt that the Lord calls men who are a little more circumspect in what they say from the pulpit, ensuring that it is grounded in doctrine and not speculation.

Where does that lead us? I draw three conclusions:
1. By being lead astray, it is meant lead into apostasy, not simple errors of gospel speculation or policy. Pres WW did a complete 180 reversal. Which was true? Polygamy was essential for exaltation, or it wasn't? The wrong teaching leads the church astray from exaltation (if that's not apostasy than I don't know what is). Case closed.
2. Prophets, apostles, and other GA's are not infallible, nor does our doctrine state they are infallible. They can make mistakes in gospel speculation, or in other issues, but those mistakes do not lead the Church into apostasy, meaning the Lord takes his keys from the Church. He is most patient with his fallible servants. Glad you clarify that they're fallible. That's a start and is actually a concession that they CAN lead people astray (though you won't officially admit to the concession). But DC 121 answers the question as to how priesthood keys are lost. It is no mystery:

...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. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God...No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood...

Furthermore, "almost ALL men" commit unrighteous dominion so we should be at least be very vigilant for UD, when the Lord says just about everyone is guilty of it.
3. If ever a prophet was going to lead the Church into apostasy, that person would be removed. That's just your opinion, as it was Wilford Woodruff's opinion too. But it's false. God allowed Satan to deceive BILLIONS of children in the premortal realms. He will therefore allow Satan to deceive a few million here.

Anyway, that is how I feel about the matter. Prophets speak for the Lord when they speak for the Lord, not everything that comes from their mouth. And I don't believe they are shown everything, so they wonder and speculate like the rest of us do. More recent prophets tend to speculate less from the pulpit, however. And for that I am grateful. I have a hard enough time keeping up with what the doctrine already is.

My comments in blue.

More than a few million. As to what I believe is meant by astray see my other post above. I still don't believe prophets can lead the Church astray, though I do believe they can make mistakes. Even then, the mistakes are rare and an anomaly, rather than the rule. This was not a new revelation for me. I have held that belief for some time. Its hard to argue with the prophets themselves when they say the same thing. So it really comes down to reconciling two statements that appear to be at odds with each other, that of prophets not being infallible, which they say themselves, and statements made by many that they will not be allowed to lead the Church astray. My argument, as outlined in more detail above, is that they really are not at odds with each other. They are talking about different degrees of mistakes...1. Ordinary mistakes and 2. Mistakes that put souls in peril when followers reasonably follow said mistakes and cause the Lord to remove His Priesthood keys from the earth. I'll give you #1, but I have never seen #2. There simply is no scriptural basis for it.

[underdog]

So it really comes down to reconciling two statements that appear to be at odds with each other, that of prophets not being infallible, which they say themselves, and statements made by many that they will not be allowed to lead the Church astray.

If I may rephrase what you just said,

It really comes down to some serious mental gymnastics to explain it.

It's like the mainstream Christian trying to explain the Trinity. Really can't do it.

Testifying that for decades (up to 1890) that polygamy is required for exaltation, and then reversing that and saying it's not...would you say that is an "ordinary mistake"?

RAB continued:

My argument, as outlined in more detail above, is that they really are not at odds with each other. They are talking about different degrees of mistakes...1. Ordinary mistakes and 2. Mistakes that put souls in peril when followers reasonably follow said mistakes and cause the Lord to remove His Priesthood keys from the earth. I'll give you #1, but I have never seen #2. There simply is no scriptural basis for it.

You say you've never seen #2. Look to my previous sentence for one example. Considering that obtaining the priesthood is essential for exaltation, ask a black man if OD2 was rectifying an "ordinary mistake"? Or might denying the priesthood based on race be reasonably construed as "putting souls in peril"?

Finally, I don't think you get something very fundamental. Priesthood (or "the rights of the priesthood) is conferred upon us, it is true, but we lose it as soon as we start practicing UD. The few verses in DC 121:36-37,41 explain it so a child can understand.

The reason is "the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled [EXCEPT] upon the principles of righteousness." The reason why the vast majority of people (including priesthood leaders) don't "get" this principle is "because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men." In the Church, many Mormon men are more concerned with pleasing men (their leaders) than God. What does my bishop or stake president want me to do? How can I impress him? Those are the questions that get asked. It's important if you want to be "promoted", as they seek "honors of men".

Now I believe many of the men I know (including me) are NOT like this. But the LORD begs to differ. He says "almost all men" are like this (v. 39). We should look in the mirror.

That means priesthood (and any accompanying keys are LOST). It's plainly taught.

[underdog]

Mormon 9:25 "And whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I confirm all my words, even unto the ends of the earth."

Your whole premise is that we should doubt what has been confirmed to us by the Spirit of God. Only Satan would ask that.

No. I am not saying that.

If I had time I would go back and quote myself and I bet you it would be 10-15 times that I said this:

In the case of Moroni's promise in Moroni 10, the Holy Ghost will confirm the BoM is true.

Agreed? I assume you agree.

Now, the Introduction Page of the BoM lays out a false chain of logic. Read it. It says:

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

Let me break this down for you. The first part is true.

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days,

This second part is absolutely NOT part of Moroni's promise, but was added in by some anonymous person:

and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

No, no, no!

So what happens is this: You, me, and a bunch of other people try Moroni's promise out and get an answer by the Spirit.

We experience the power of God and KNOW the BoM is true, that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph was a true prophet.

The spiritual confirmation ends there. The promise was fulfilled! Just as Moroni promised. We ask if the book is true, and God tells us.

I love that Mormon 9:25 verse you quoted too. Yes. I testify from experience that is true.

I've spelled this "illogic" out numerous times above. It's the 4th piece of evidence of apostasy I listed. And yet you said erroneously above:

Your whole premise is that we should doubt what has been confirmed to us by the Spirit of God. Only Satan would ask that.

As you can see I NEVER said that. Why on earth then are you stating I said that? Fake news! You have a habit of doing this to me. It's unfair and wrong. Do you work for CNN? Perhaps you're emotional or just not carefully reading. Please try to pay attention more closely. Time is valuable.

So, in summary, again, what I am saying is that YOUR premise is wrong. Question your assumptions, your unbeliefs. The church is not true when the Lord fulfills Moroni's promise. The church is in no way connected to Moroni's promise. I am asking is that you stop and think for a moment. Hit pause and think.

Will you stop with the misinformation please? Such misrepresentation does not help your argument.

Why don't you instead ask me a question, like, "So underdog, are you saying that...?" Seek first to understand.

I could do better at that too, I'm sure.

What I've outlined here is another verifiable piece of evidence that the Church is apostate because it's in our standard works. Clearly the intent of adding:

and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

was to have people believe the witness they get from Moroni's promise refers to the Church.

This is very slick and lawyeresque but patently dishonest. It's one of the most cunning and clever piggyback tricks a deceiver could ever dream up. Kudos to whomever thought of it. A deception of this skill and brilliance had to have come from Satan.

It's worthy of #4 on my list of evidences of apostasy.

[Serragon]

That means priesthood (and any accompanying keys are LOST). It's plainly taught.

I disagree. I believe you are extrapolating a bit.

What is plainly taught is that if we use UD, there will be no power in our priesthood. If we humble ourselves and stop practicing UD, then we will continue to have power in the priesthood.

The keys are not revoked.

[underdog]

That means priesthood (and any accompanying keys are LOST). It's plainly taught.

I disagree. I believe you are extrapolating a bit.

What is plainly taught is that if we use UD, there will be no power in our priesthood. If we humble ourselves and stop practicing UD, then we will continue to have power in the priesthood.

The keys are not revoked.

I agree. Daily repentance needed. Power ebbs and flows. But as the Lord warns, the Spirit will not always strive with man. We must make sure we don't procrastinate the day of our repentance.

[Arenera]

That means priesthood (and any accompanying keys are LOST). It's plainly taught.

I disagree. I believe you are extrapolating a bit.

What is plainly taught is that if we use UD, there will be no power in our priesthood. If we humble ourselves and stop practicing UD, then we will continue to have power in the priesthood.

The keys are not revoked.

I agree. Daily repentance needed. Power ebbs and flows. But as the Lord warns, the Spirit will not always strive with man. We must make sure we don't procrastinate the day of our repentance.

We know you believe the church is in apostasy. Is your intention to try to convince others that it is? How sad if it is.

[underdog]

That means priesthood (and any accompanying keys are LOST). It's plainly taught.

I disagree. I believe you are extrapolating a bit.

What is plainly taught is that if we use UD, there will be no power in our priesthood. If we humble ourselves and stop practicing UD, then we will continue to have power in the priesthood.

The keys are not revoked.

I agree. Daily repentance needed. Power ebbs and flows. But as the Lord warns, the Spirit will not always strive with man. We must make sure we don't procrastinate the day of our repentance.

We know you believe the church is in apostasy. Is your intention to try to convince others that it is? How sad if it is.

Arenera,

Thank you.

Could a better question be: Regardless of the existence of any allegation, if there is evidence of apostasy should we as members examine it to see if it's true? Or should we turn a blind eye? Esp if the truth, even if it's inconvenient, brings us closer to Christ.

Will you kindly answer that question?

[BackBlast]

So it appears these scriptures and reasoning are unpersuasive to you.

You are sticking with: the Brethren don't need to have been chosen, and ordained and sent by the Lord to be true.

I will re-iterate one more time.

Your reasoning with me is much less persuasive than the Lord telling me with his own voice that they are His. I mean really, would you believe a random guy on the internet however logical or extensive his reasoning over that? You act like I should and in doing so it doesn't appear to be sinking in at all what I have said, which is why I intend to respectfully bow out.

Instead of advocating what I thought the remnant movement was about, attaching themselves directly to Christ (which I find quite laudable and a worthy pursuit), you insist on these long proofs that attempt to illustrate flaws in others. These are not the fruits I would like to join myself with or encourage others to seek.

[underdog]

So it appears these scriptures and reasoning are unpersuasive to you.

You are sticking with: the Brethren don't need to have been chosen, and ordained and sent by the Lord to be true.

I will re-iterate one more time.

Your reasoning with me is much less persuasive than the Lord telling me with his own voice that they are His. I mean really, would you believe a random guy on the internet however logical or extensive his reasoning over that? You act like I should and in doing so it doesn't appear to be sinking in at all what I have said, which is why I intend to respectfully bow out.

Instead of advocating what I thought the remnant movement was about, attaching themselves directly to Christ (which I find quite laudable and a worthy pursuit), you insist on these long proofs that attempt to illustrate flaws in others. These are not the fruits I would like to join myself with or encourage others to seek.

BackBlast,

You: "Your reasoning with me is much less persuasive than the Lord telling me with his own voice that they are His."

I too have had prayers answered and I know WITHOUT A DOUBT God had just communicated to me.

Obviously a testimony like you describe nobody can argue with. Would you mind sharing the details of this experience? Had you just asked a question? What was the question? Are there any assumptions involved? Was it an audible voice, or just a feeling? Did the Lord speak to you face to face?

Here is a valuable parable for your consideration that I believe you will personally appreciate and be instructed by: https://daymonsmith.wordpress.com/2014/ ... uthor-ity/. The meaning of this parable has profound implications. It helps PROMOTE faith in Christ, as it attempts to eliminate reasons for people to doubt Him and how He works through true prophets. It has made a lasting impression on me in the last few weeks since I've read it, and will serve to help me use more accurate language in describing my personal experiences with Diety.

Please replace Tim's name with your name, as you read the parable.

I'll copy and paste it here (minus the pictures and emphasis added by the author):

"Voice and Author-ity"

A man woke in the middle of the night, and had many thoughts. Let’s call him Tim. He returned to sleep and in the morning he told the neighbors, “Skeletor woke me last night, and told me to go about doing bad things.” The neighbors wondered at this saying, but figured the man was telling a joke.

The next night, the man again awoke, not of his own accord, and realized that again Skeletor had come and was giving much knowledge and instruction. “Skeletor came again last night, woke me up and told me to start an Evil Horde,” he explained to his neighbors. They went away wondering, did this Skeletor really come and wake him? And if so, what might we do to enjoy his loud laughter and evil speaking of Eternia’s anointed?

We might ask some questions of this would-be disciple of Skeletor.

First, when you say, “Skeletor awoke me last night,” you mean you saw him, in the violet anger of his person, and looked upon his yellowed skull face?

So, he put his hand on you, shook you gently, and then roughly, whispering, “Man, wake up. Hey, wake up.” And you said, “Huh, wha? who’s there…huh…mumblemumble…AHHH, Skeletor!!!”

And Skeletor said, “That’s right, fool! Now I have awakened you, and I require you to do my evil bidding!”

And you said, “Hey, that’s totally cool, but it’s like 3 am. I mean, I can’t do a whole lot of evil bidding right now. I’m in my underwear, ahem, non-magical, as you’ve now heard; my hair’s a mess, and like, I gotta thing I gotta do. You know, maybe come back in the morning?”

And Skeletor answered, “Fool! I have chosen you to restore the Evil Horde. Look upon my face. It is yellow and skully, and although I don’t have lips, yet I can pronounce my words without impediment. It’s because I possess the power of Skeletor. Feel my skull face, and my purple muscles.”

And you said, “dude, why don’t you come back later? It’s like 3 in the morning. But if that’ll get you out my bed, I guess I can feel your skull face. Yeah, it’s a skull face alright.”

“Hah hah hah hah hah!!!”

So, we ask, was it like that?

No, the man replies, I mean I conversed with him in my mind, as he is wont to do. But he was in your room? we ask. Yes. And you saw him? Not with my natural eyes. With which eyes, then? In my mind’s eye. Not in your skull? So, you woke up, had some thoughts, and attributed them to a cartoon villain pictured in your mind, who had specially chosen you to restore the Evil Horde? Yes.

Of course, we would say this man is misusing ordinary language.

When he says, “the Lord of Evil came to me,” he means, “I had some thoughts or feelings I attributed to Skeletor.” When he claims, “Skeltor woke me up,” he means, “I woke up, and since I am not conscious of myself waking myself, I attributed that as an effect of a cartoon villain who had wondered into my room from the world of Filmation.” He is asking us to do the interpretive work, or not.

Why not just describe things as they happened, rather than as he repaints them?

Others eager to hear from Skeletor might decide that perhaps this man has been chosen to bring back the Evil Horde, for it is possible, isn’t it? What might I do, they inquire, in order to enjoy Skeletor’s nighttime wake-up call and special invitation?

Perhaps you must be X, Y, and Z. Surely Skeletor doesn’t just visit anyone, as he pleases. He is a busy villain, and wouldn’t waste his time hanging out with just anyone. There must be something special about his chosen.

What seems be the deciding moment is when one decides to describe events in terms not entirely faithful to the reality experienced. There is dishonesty in requiring others to unlock one’s words, and to show they mean something rather less definite than the picture they conjure up. What would we call a man who says, “I saw an alien ship in the sky!” Yet, after questioning, we learn he means, “I saw a cloud that looked like what I figure alien ships look like”? If we must ask further questions to find out his words mean other than what we might call their “literal” meaning, we might say he is deceiving us.

Ah, the poet’s license: William Blake often said he spied angels here and there, but he was a poet, and did not credit these angels with having specific names and giving him practical instruction about how to act in this world, except in a general way he’d call “good.” In cases like Blake’s we can leave unresolved whether he “really” saw angels or not. Whatever he saw, he called them angels.

Tim’s case in the parable is different in an important way.

We could say to Tim, “You may attribute any author to your thoughts, to your unconscious actions, to pictures in your head. But why not attribute them to a lesser being, rather than the greater? Why must the Lord of Darkness be their author, rather than, say, Modulok or Chad? Did he say something only Skeletor would say?”

Surely, there are other beings in Eternia eager to converse with us, and why must every thought and waking up be credited to Skeletor?

In fact, why bother assigning an author to the voices in our head? Except that by an author we hope to give our words authority? The, “I heard from so-and-so” turn that presents some face as a mask to cover investigation into the merit our words?

But doesn’t the truth come whatever its source, and carry its own influence? Do these voices really have an author? Or is it more like a drawing using another being’s words, and those words are read from a script written by a team of writers, drawing on their own experiences with other voices, and so on? Who, then, is the author? A drawing named Chad?

Why say “Skeletor,” except that one can now begin an assault on Castle Greyskull, seeking for its power and throne? Leaving aside obvious obligations to cite published authors in order to give credit, and avoid charges of plagiarism, Why can’t we just report something, a notion, a thought, an inspiration, and not assign an author when we don’t really have an author’s name or face to reference?

Of course, I am aware that some readers will instead be asking, “Is Daymon talking about X, Y, or Z?” I am talking about this way of talking, regardless of who does it.

Note: Also, I am not denying the possibility of supernatural visitors. In my own Cultural History I describe some invasions of my personal space by powerful thoughts, let’s call them; which I attributed to various named individuals. Yet in no case did they instruct me to do such and such, except as it related to something I had written. Mostly correcting me. There the invasion seemingly concluded. Had I simply said, B.H. Roberts came to me, and told me what to write, I’d be, I think, less than truthful. He didn’t tell me what to write, but some thoughts I’d describe as “not my own” suggested what I’d written was not quite right.

The question, of course, is: How do we decide which thoughts are “ours” and which to attribute to some other mind-invading entity? Or, maybe the better question: Why bother assigning names and sources to thoughts?

Isn’t it enough we have good ones, and bad ones? If a thought or sentence persuades us to do good, we can say it came from Christ. Does that mean I can say, “Christ told me to do, say, feel, such-and-such”? I don’t think so. If I read C.S. Peirce, and his writings inform my thoughts, it would clearly be untruthful to say, “Peirce is telling me what to think,” except as I make it clear I mean, “The writings of Peirce, not the actual man.”

By talking as our Tim has in the parable, moreover, we make it more likely others will doubt someone else’s claims about really being visited by Skeletor, leaving them always in doubt that maybe this someone too was speaking metaphorically, or adding interpretation to description. Adding an author does not dissolve our unbelief, rather it promotes it, and builds on the power of their name. It would be more honest to not designate an author where we don’t have a face or a name. Instead, we could speak of what was said, thought, felt, heard, and so on, and decide the merits of their meaning without worry of offending Skeletor or Chad. This is an Article of Faith, perhaps.

[RAB]

So it appears these scriptures and reasoning are unpersuasive to you.

You are sticking with: the Brethren don't need to have been chosen, and ordained and sent by the Lord to be true.

I will re-iterate one more time.

Your reasoning with me is much less persuasive than the Lord telling me with his own voice that they are His. I mean really, would you believe a random guy on the internet however logical or extensive his reasoning over that? You act like I should and in doing so it doesn't appear to be sinking in at all what I have said, which is why I intend to respectfully bow out.

Instead of advocating what I thought the remnant movement was about, attaching themselves directly to Christ (which I find quite laudable and a worthy pursuit), you insist on these long proofs that attempt to illustrate flaws in others. These are not the fruits I would like to join myself with or encourage others to seek.

Ditto.