Identifying and Coping with "Unrighteous Dominion"

[Hivetyrant36]

As one who has suffered under UD fron a bishop and now my father, i can tell you that for some reason the answer for me is almost always to just endure it. Kinda ticks me off. But hey, if thats what i gotta do...

[Arenera]

But not if you think you're right and if you keep your heads stuck in the sand.

I believe to know something is right and to not do it, is an act of utter cowardice. A coward can't admit their wrong, and avoids any light being shown on the tradition he's invested in. Conversely, a courageous man owns up to and admits folly and embraces and follows truth. In order to come to know the Lord, sacrificing "precious" traditions viewed as truths is a joy and not a burden.

Your language is Unrighteous Dominion, can't you see that? You have left the Iron Rod, taking a strange path, and now you call people cowards because they don't want to follow the strange path?

Noel Reynolds refuted the Lectures on Faith claim that you have made, which is also being made by the remnants on their new scriptures.

I find it interesting that Sidney Rigdon ended up outside the church, used the Lectures on Faith in the church he founded. That makes sense because he wrote them. But he did end up outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

It seems symbolic that the remnants would choose to use the Lectures on Faith for their scriptures. They are also outside the church. Very symbolic.

[BackBlast]

I don't know what to say. I guess I should be sorry for asking sincere questions? My "purposes" are nothing but the truth.

They don't feel sincere to me. It feels more like a reflex, in line with a pattern that has been forming with your interactions with me, than a genuine desire to learn and that results in me being uncomfortable sharing any more with you. More that you have been trained in a particular manner to find error and fault and are following in that training.

Nothing personal about it though. Truth is truth. I seek the truth.

Your actions indicate that seeking truth is not actually your primary motivator, at least not here and now. You clearly believe that you are dispensing it. I sympathize, as when I am in the midst of discussion I often find that it isn't mine either though I try for it.

[underdog]

I don't know what to say. I guess I should be sorry for asking sincere questions? My "purposes" are nothing but the truth.

They don't feel sincere to me. It feels more like a reflex, in line with a pattern that has been forming with your interactions with me, than a genuine desire to learn and that results in me being uncomfortable sharing any more with you. More that you have been trained in a particular manner to find error and fault and are following in that training.

Nothing personal about it though. Truth is truth. I seek the truth.

Your actions indicate that seeking truth is not actually your primary motivator, at least not here and now. You clearly believe that you are dispensing it. I sympathize, as when I am in the midst of discussion I often find that it isn't mine either though I try for it.

BackBlast,

That to me feels like a genuine and honest statement of your perception. If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I respect that completely. No problem.

As far as evaluating whether I am seeking truth. the criteria I have, as a converted Mormon, is that I should be willing to take up my cross and follow Jesus. I should be willing to "leave my nets." I should be willing to choose Christ over loved ones. I have personal experience with doing these things. It was when I was willing to, and/or actually did sacrifice that I came to know that I was doing God's will. I hope that I'm not required to leave family to follow Christ in the future, but I must say )with great gratitude in my heart that I am not required to do that at this moment), that I am still willing to make even that sacrifice. If I have to make an Abrahamic type of sacrifice, I pray I have the faith and courage to proceed with doing God's will.

So if I'm evaluating whether or not I'm seeking truth, that's how I do it. What other criteria is there ? Christ is the Truth, so I seek His will. Me dispensing truth? Ha ha. I don't feel I know anything. I honestly don't feel qualified to dispense truth. The only truth I feel I am qualified to "dispense" if people have ears is that Christ lives, as does His Father. They are real. Well, I can say that the idea of their existence is real. I've never seen them, but I feel I've experienced their spiritual power, spirit speaking to spirit. I can't deny my "revelations." Likewise, I know they spoke to Joseph and he knows God. I know the BoM is true. It was Joseph's testimony that got my attention and caused me to seek God in the first place.

As to everything else, I don't know squat. Could say I'm a fool. I wouldn't be offended if I was viewed that way. That's how I view myself. I pray Heavenly Father makes this weakness in knowledge a strength some day.

As far as Denver Snuffer, the truth is I have yet to receive a POWERFUL spiritual witness of his divine calling. I have received dozens of what I would call spiritual manifestations that he is legit, but I'm a believer right now, rather than knowing as I did with Joseph. I'm not exactly sure why that is. If Heavenly Father gave me a choice, "Say whether you think he speaks for Me. Get it wrong, and you die immediately." If this was the situation, I would without hesitation declare to God that Denver speaks for God, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. More specifically, I believe that God is setting His hand again the second time to recover His people, and this work is being done through Denver's ministry and prophetic leadership. Yes, I believe he's a prophet. As I wrote that last sentence the Spirit washed over me. I pray an honest truth-seeker reading this was filled with the Spirit as he read those words. Those are the types of manifestations I referred to earlier. I've had lots of those, but nothing like I had regarding the BoM/ Joseph Smith.

I need to know about Denver, but the Spirit whispers to me, "you already know." But is that my thought or the Spirit's?

The time will come, and perhaps sooner than later, when I (AND ALL OF US READING THIS) will have to make a big choice. It happened in Nephi's day. He declared to his people that the Lord told him to depart from the land of Nephi, and do it immediately. 2 Nephi 5:5 is chilling to me:

And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me.

Those people who believed Nephi was a true prophet, went with him. That is the pattern. "Whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Nephi continued:

And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words.

Since I'm not hearing God's audible voice and don't see Him face to face, I walk by faith and must rely on the spiritual manifestations I receive and must judge the facts as they are brought to my attention, and compare them to the revealed Word of God. All these things add up to Denver being legit. But completely independent of Denver, the few facts of apostasy/ unrighteous dominion I've summarized also add up to apostasy of the Brethren. A few years ago I couldn't have said this about them. What's the difference? They have been duly warned. It's all official, signed, sealed and delivered. Before Denver's excommunication, there was no official "warning" or official opportunity for them to discuss things openly and repent.

Let me explain what I mean, because it's something that wasn't clear to me until I wrote this last paragraph.

Denver's rejection by the Brethren is what made the Brethren's apostasy "official." How could it have possibly been official before his excommunication and appeal was denied? Think about just the 8 acts of apostasy that I've mentioned. For the average member, what would be the means of "being heard"? Let's call them "grievances". How would they have been handled?

Let's think about this.

Let's say my bishop graciously heard my questions. Let's say he didn't excommunicate me. We'll say he's a good one, not exercising UD upon me. Then my case would go to the stake president. Let's say he too was not an UD guy. So he escalated it to an Area Authority, who did likewise until it reached SLC and the Quorum of the 12 and /or First Presidency.

Is there any chance that they would respond to, much less officially apologize for these 8 acts of apostate behavior? No chance I'd say. No doubt this is OLD NEWS to them! Long ago swept under the rug. The Internet and Information Age have accelerated things.

In other words, such questions would go unaddressed by the Brethren. Meaning there would be no remedy. The word would come back down to the stake or ward to deal with me as they saw fit. I might even respond like HiveTyrant36 did, when he said above:

As one who has suffered under UD fron a bishop and now my father, i can tell you that for some reason the answer for me is almost always to just endure it. Kinda ticks me off. But hey, if thats what i gotta do...

Just "endure" the UD. That's been the task of the saints. If the Brethren are not going to change, if they aren't going to listen, then we just have to "endure" them and their UD. After all, the Church can't be led astray anyway. Wink wink!

But then comes along Denver Snuffer, whose testimony rocks the Brethren's world so much that they force his excommunication. The leader closest to him (his bishop) never feels right in doing anything to him, and in fact, keeps calling him to teach, Denver's last calling being a teacher of the youth (if I recall). The next leader, his stake president, ALSO does nothing. He feels compelled to do nothing, for Denver has done nothing wrong. Elder Russell M. Nelson intervenes and has that stake president released. Just before he's released he signs Denver's temple recommend, telling him that trouble may be on the way (something of that effect, as I recall reading about it). The new stake president (a puppet of the 12) will follow orders! And sure enough, within a year or so (I think), the deed is done. So much for local authority being autonomous and not directed by Church HQ. See http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/searc ... ss+release.

Denver's story is significant, as I think about it, because he had spent years writing about, or teaching about WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY, which is to say that the Scriptures teach apostasy happens. That would be a nice T-shirt logo: "Apostasy Happens." His books are out there. He deals with the subject, and actually gives a way for disaffected members to justify staying in the Church because they're able to separate Christ / the Gospel from the Brethren. He gives reasons to STAY in the Church, by explaining Church history in a true light with correct perspective.

With Denver being cast out, and officially denounced by the Brethren, that event represents a turning point. All 8 of the short list of apostate acts I've put together, along with ALL acts of apostasy are wrapped up in Denver's case. His case represents the Acts of Apostasy all rolled up together and put in a file and "served" to the First Presidency. With Denver's case, they had the opportunity to listen to, and hear the questions of a regular rank and file, obscure member of the Church. With their agency, they rejected his appeal and with it, ALL of the voices that were coming up to them from members who were asking them to explain their apostasy.

Because they were unwilling to discuss Denver's case in the light of day (they even denied his family could attend his council), and instead chose to proceed with casting out a good man, they made it official before God, angels and man that they would not hear such "complaints". They had their chance. They rejected it. They still could repent, but procrastination is never a recommended option when it comes to repentance, esp with so much at risk. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they would repent, and would discuss these acts of apostasy. What a great day that would be.

The Corporation Sole model would obviously have to be abandoned as it is a totally corrupt model. It's the very definition of centralization of power. Power corrupts. Decentralization (or avoiding centralization) is obviously how the Lord would set up any organization He was behind. How we members stand for a corporation where the president of the corporation owns and controls all assets is unreal. In fact, let me make the Corporation Sole the #9 piece of evidence of apostasy. It's provable and utterly apostate on its face. You can bet your bottom dollar that there are lots of friends to the president who want to make sure they remain on the "friendly" list of the president, since he's the one writing the checks and deciding (in the dark, mind you) where the money and assets go.

So circling back to my motive for truth, I'd like to hear how I could have a purer motive for seeking truth. Please teach it to me.

Also you said that I was "trained in a particular manner to find error and fault and" that I was "following in that training." Perhaps I should take that as a compliment? I'm not a lawyer. I despise that corrupt profession. Actually I was very dismayed to hear Denver was a lawyer. Big red flag. Can't judge a book by its cover though. I guess law school is where you'd learn such "training". I have no training save what I've learned from the Church and Scriptures. My major in school wasn't philosophy or anything of that nature. And...do you think it is fair to say I'm fault finding by reporting on UD/apostasy? "Hey! That ''sheep' over there looks like he's got a sheep costume on! Is that REALLY a sheep?" Is that finding fault? Or might I (or anybody else sincerely inquiring) just be trying to determine if it's a wolf under there? To use that analogy, I'm pointing out such glaring defects in the sheep costume worn by the wolf (with my list of apostate acts), it's like me pointing out the two wolf's ears poking through the top of the sheep costume, or that there's a 12-inch rip in the costume and you can see the wolf's black hair clearly, or one of the sheep legs has fallen off so the poor wolf has a costume with 3 sheep's legs and one wolf leg, or to be most accurate...the mask has fallen off and you can see the wolf's face. Is it fault finding to point any of these observations out?

Implicit in Christ's warning to beware of false prophets is the vital duty to discern. He's commanding us to discern or distinguish something that looks like a true servant, but actually is not. Discernment is the major point of his warning. Looking at it that way, and this should be no surprise or revelation, I am actually OBEYING Christ by pointing out the visible body parts of the wolf who's in sheep's clothing. I realize this is a different perspective -- it was too to me up until a minute ago. Anybody who ridicules one who is DOING the discerning is actually being critical of trying to obey Christ. I admit, it's a tricky thing. On the one hand we should find the faults of the impostors. On the other, we should not speak evil of the Lord's anointed. You can see how impostors would use this delicate balancing act against those who would try to expose them.

J. Reuben Clark said,

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

Such a great quote. In other words, if there is a wolf hiding behind the costume, he should be exposed!

Summarizing... instead of alleging someone to be a fault finder, I propose there be an honest examination of the parts that look like a wolf. If there's nothing there, then great, but if there is, then we can dismiss the impostor for what he is -- an impostor.

[Arenera]

Actually, Denver isn't the only one who has be excommunicated recently for apostasy. You could end up there too if you go public in your ward.

And remember, your point 6 has been debunked.

[underdog]

Actually, Denver isn't the only one who has be excommunicated recently for apostasy. You could end up there too if you go public in your ward.

And remember, your point 6 has been debunked.

Point #6 -- removing LoF has not been debunked. That's like Bill Clinton saying he's not a rapist because he says his victims are liars. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. History stands. You're trying to sanitize it.

[Arenera]

Actually, Denver isn't the only one who has be excommunicated recently for apostasy. You could end up there too if you go public in your ward.

And remember, your point 6 has been debunked.

Point #6 -- removing LoF has not been debunked. That's like Bill Clinton saying he's not a rapist because he says his victims are liars. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. History stands. You're trying to sanitize it.

Not at all. Maybe you haven't taken the time to read the research that Noel Reynolds did. 15 years. The apostles on the committee that removed the LoF were inspired. So no apostasy by the church or leaders as of 1921.

If you are going to research, you need to see all the info, not just what you want. That is the way Denver does it.

[underdog]

Actually, Denver isn't the only one who has be excommunicated recently for apostasy. You could end up there too if you go public in your ward.

And remember, your point 6 has been debunked.

Point #6 -- removing LoF has not been debunked. That's like Bill Clinton saying he's not a rapist because he says his victims are liars. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. History stands. You're trying to sanitize it.

Not at all. Maybe you haven't taken the time to read the research that Noel Reynolds did. 15 years. The apostles on the committee that removed the LoF were inspired. So no apostasy by the church or leaders as of 1921.

If you are going to research, you need to see all the info, not just what you want. That is the way Denver does it.

You said,

The apostles on the committee that removed the LoF were inspired.

What would you expect them to say? Come on.

Again, your reasoning is circular. You've never escaped the vicious circle of your faulty logic. The circle is your own presumption. You can't use false reality (your LDS tradition that the Brethren are true servants and can't lead us astray) as a defense that they haven't apostatized. You have no supporters here, even among the Brethrenites, because they recognize you are speaking illogic.

A wolf guarding the hen house would never confess to hurting the chickens.

Incredibly, running with this analogy, the wolf does say he killed and ate the chickens (because there is video evidence, i.e., history of the apostles removing the LoF in 1921), but he says the reason he did it was because he was inspired. Absent any recorded and published revelation and absent a church vote ratifying said revelation. Imagine the laughter in the courtroom, should a wolf try to make the argument you're making! The prosecuting attorney turns to the jury, "Okay, we just heard him admit to the crime, and the reason he did it was because he said he was inspired." Attorney smiles at the jury (who try their best to hold back their return smiles) and says, "I rest my case."

In all seriousness, this does get to the heart of our discussion. You are arguing that they are true servants. I say there is convicting evidence they are not. I ask for any recorded revelation from the Brethren. You offer none.

But when I present evidence they are apostate, you take the evidence presented and say, essentially, "they removed the LoF because God told them to do it" (without a vote from the body of the Church). My question to you, Arenera, is this: Since Joseph approved (i.e., the Lord told him to add the LoF in 1835), do you hold the few apostles who were on that committee in 1921 as more authoritative than Joseph Smith?

You MUST answer that those few men did have more God-given authority than Joseph. You MUST say they were greater than Joseph was. You MUST acknowledge those 1921 apostles on that committee that removed the LoF from our canon of Scripture had more trusted revelatory acumen (more spiritual gifts of being a prophet, seer, and revelator) than Joseph Smith. And if you argue that argument, you must bring their body of work (their "fruit") to justify your opinion.

Do you want to argue in that manner, with that line of reasoning?

Or do you just want to concede that they annihilated holy Scripture (known as Mormon "DOCTRINE" -- the LoF were the "doctrine" part of the "Doctrine and Covenants") at their own whim and without the proper protocol of a Church vote?

Which will you choose?

Please don't choose silence or ignoring of the question presented. But do as you will, it's your choice.

[underdog]

Actually, Denver isn't the only one who has be excommunicated recently for apostasy. You could end up there too if you go public in your ward.

And remember, your point 6 has been debunked.

Point #6 -- removing LoF has not been debunked. That's like Bill Clinton saying he's not a rapist because he says his victims are liars. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. History stands. You're trying to sanitize it.

To Arenera,

I don't like my analogy above. Despite the many sexual victims of Bill Clinton, defenders could still say it's a "he said she said" deal.

Better would be JFK's murder. It happened. It's on video. The shadow gov't, the deep state -- modern Gadiantons did it. There is mounds of evidence that criminal elements of the gov't were behind it, and Grade A evidence would be the evidence of cover-up. The Warren Commission and how they investigated would be evidence itself. If you put George Bush Sr. or LBJ on the stand and asked them if they were one of the conspirators, of course they would deny it. Let's remember, JFK did die that day. And he died not because of some random lone gunman, but it was a conspiracy to murder him for very good reasons, in their minds.

In the case of the removal of the LoF in 1921, of course the apostles would say they were inspired (though I've not read any such quotes -- do you have any?). But think about it...ANY claim of being "inspired" would have the EXACT SAME MOTIVE as Wilford Woodruff when he said in 1890, "Trust me, I can't lead you astray."

This is all fulfillment of DC 121:37 where the Lord says, "when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition...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."

You are just making stronger the case that the removal of LoF was an egregious act of apostasy.

[Arenera]

You are just making stronger the case that the removal of LoF was an egregious act of apostasy.

Let me help you with good research, read this if you haven't:
http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view ... ext=facpub

Since your #6 is debunked, we conclude your others are bunk also since your research is lacking.

You have jumped off the ship, why do you keep yelling at those who have stayed on? Swim to your island and enjoy separation. Once in a while the ship will pass by, you can come back.

[underdog]

You are just making stronger the case that the removal of LoF was an egregious act of apostasy.

Let me help you with good research, read this if you haven't:
http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view ... ext=facpub

Since your #6 is debunked, we conclude your others are bunk also since your research is lacking.

You have jumped off the ship, why do you keep yelling at those who have stayed on? Swim to your island and enjoy separation. Once in a while the ship will pass by, you can come back.

Arenera,

I just saw this.

Your argument has already been rebutted. It's quite simple. The paper which is at the link above you provide is entitled, "The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith."

Mind you, this is the same Sidney Rigdon who had been in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1832!

DC 76:

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

This is no ordinary man, #1. He was deemed pure enough and worthy enough to see what few men/ women have seen.

#2, it doesn't matter who wrote it. Let's say Sidney wrote 100% of it. The point is that Joseph Smith APPROVED it. But let's be honest, we can all safely agree that Joseph was involved in its writing and was heavily involved in the final result. Joseph put his prophetic stamp of approval on it, and it was inserted into our canon of scripture as our official doctrine! It was then voted on and unanimously sustained.

Why did you think this was a rebuttal? We haven't been talking about WHO wrote it. That's an entirely different question. But the answer to that question is that it was inspired by God. Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[shadow]

"Beginning with the 1835 edition, a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the Lectures on Faith. These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, from 1834 to 1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." -The church

Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures. The Book of Mormon Prophets talk about it often that they only record a portion or part of what's in their records. Sometimes the Lord corrects it, like in 3rd Nephi, but mostly He doesn't.
There are many reasons we don't have all the records of everything in the scriptures. The nice thing is that the Lectures weren't taken from us so I'm not sure why all the murmuring.

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people.

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
People still getting an "F" on that test^^

[underdog]

"Beginning with the 1835 edition, a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the Lectures on Faith. These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, from 1834 to 1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." -The church

Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures. The Book of Mormon Prophets talk about it often that they only record a portion or part of what's in their records. Sometimes the Lord corrects it, like in 3rd Nephi, but mostly He doesn't.
There are many reasons we don't have all the records of everything in the scriptures. The nice thing is that the Lectures weren't taken from us so I'm not sure why all the murmuring.

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people.

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
People still getting an "F" on that test^^

Shadow,

I Googled that quote above and found it quoted here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s

I'd like to point out a few amazing things. The corruption is hidden in plain sight!

• 1) The quote is anonymous. Even you attributed it to "the Church." How does a "church" speak? It doesn't. This is how 17 intelligence agencies get away with lying and saying there's evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. The Brethren hide behind the Church the same way. Anonymity allows deceivers the ability to escape accountability.

• 2) The statement, "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church" is a lie. That's why it's anonymous! And yet, we find this lie in our manual, from which we study each year. We are being propagandized! The LoF WERE in fact presented as official doctrine of the Church and voted on and sustained unanimously by the body of the Church in 1835. Watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO0tCz_RICo. You will hear a very succinct explanation and this is proven by the records of history. The LoF represent the DOCTRINES of the Church stemming from Joseph's revelations, the BoM, and the Bible. In other words, it's a sort of Cliffs Notes for our doctrine, nicely packaged for the Church members and approved by the Prophet of this Dispensation. The Lectures should be the MAIN course of instruction for our missionaries. The MTC should be a concentrated dose of the Lectures on Faith. What time is wasted on Preach My Gospel! Members should be studying the Lectures regularly in Sunday School. Our Youth should have them MEMORIZED! How nice it was for the Lord to give us Cliffs Notes of the doctrine found throughout the Scriptures!!! And some liars in 1921 throw it all out!

• 3) At the Church's official webpage (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s), we also see the following cover-up of the addition of the anti Christ "we can't lead you astray" precept which is in my view the #1 reason for the Brethren's apostasy and churh members' idolatry. It brings me no pleasure whatsoever to be able to submit the following evidence to you. I'll copy and paste it here in case it's removed, but I'm quite confident the Church won't remove it because they don't have to -- members blindly believe what they say -- so they feel no need to hide evidence of their cover-ups. This is the quote:

  In the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, three documents were included for the first time. These are sections 137 and 138, setting forth the fundamentals of salvation for the dead; and Official Declaration 2, announcing that all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

  Notice anything missing from what was added "for the first time"? Let me help you. This is the year (1981) that the WW excerpts were added to OD1, along with the things mentioned in the foregoing quote. "They" don't want you to know the Satanic precept was added. They seek to cover it up. This is a "sin of omission"! I found this without even looking.

Shadow, I can tell you've not studied the Lectures on Faith. Else, you would never say something like this, "Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures" to justify impostors arrogantly removing them from our Holy Scriptures.

You speak truth, but what we don't omit is the doctrine! This is how the great and abominable whore removed "plain and precious" truths from the Bible. Committees full of vanity and corruption got together and went to war against the word of the Lord.

This is how you could benefit from studying the LoF:

• You could grow your faith in Christ.

• You could increase your knowledge of who God is.

• You could understand the nature of the Godhead. It's not what we're taught in Sunday School.

• You can learn specifically how to be exalted.

• You can learn what the Holy Spirit is. You can learn what the mind of Christ is.

• You can learn the importance of sacrifice.

• You can learn what kind of being the Father is.

• You can learn how to exercise faith.

The Lectures will change your life. Indeed, they teach us how to come unto Christ and receive life and salvation. Removing them was essentially a frontal attack on the Church's ability to teach saving truths to its members. It brought damnation upon the members.

To argue in defense of the 1921 apostles puts you in the position of arguing for the destruction of the doctrine of Christ.

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

[brlenox]

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

Dog, you seem very concerned about the Lectures on faith and the fact that you perceive them to be scriptural canon as they were voted on by the membership and accepted into the canon. There is a little known factoid that I wonder if you have done any research on. Would you provide evidence that the Book of Mormon was presented to the church and voted on to be included in the official cannon.

If you find the evidence concerning such, and I suspect you will not, then if you would find the vote on when the Bible was accepted into church canon.

Thank you,

[Irrelevant]

"Beginning with the 1835 edition, a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the Lectures on Faith. These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, from 1834 to 1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." -The church

Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures. The Book of Mormon Prophets talk about it often that they only record a portion or part of what's in their records. Sometimes the Lord corrects it, like in 3rd Nephi, but mostly He doesn't.
There are many reasons we don't have all the records of everything in the scriptures. The nice thing is that the Lectures weren't taken from us so I'm not sure why all the murmuring.

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people.

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
People still getting an "F" on that test^^

Shadow,

I Googled that quote above and found it quoted here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s

I'd like to point out a few amazing things. The corruption is hidden in plain sight!

• 1) The quote is anonymous. Even you attributed it to "the Church." How does a "church" speak? It doesn't. This is how 17 intelligence agencies get away with lying and saying there's evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. The Brethren hide behind the Church the same way. Anonymity allows deceivers the ability to escape accountability.

• 2) The statement, "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church" is a lie. That's why it's anonymous! And yet, we find this lie in our manual, from which we study each year. We are being propagandized! The LoF WERE in fact presented as official doctrine of the Church and voted on and sustained unanimously by the body of the Church in 1835. Watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO0tCz_RICo. You will hear a very succinct explanation and this is proven by the records of history. The LoF represent the DOCTRINES of the Church stemming from Joseph's revelations, the BoM, and the Bible. In other words, it's a sort of Cliffs Notes for our doctrine, nicely packaged for the Church members and approved by the Prophet of this Dispensation. The Lectures should be the MAIN course of instruction for our missionaries. The MTC should be a concentrated dose of the Lectures on Faith. What time is wasted on Preach My Gospel! Members should be studying the Lectures regularly in Sunday School. Our Youth should have them MEMORIZED! How nice it was for the Lord to give us Cliffs Notes of the doctrine found throughout the Scriptures!!! And some liars in 1921 throw it all out!

• 3) At the Church's official webpage (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s), we also see the following cover-up of the addition of the anti Christ "we can't lead you astray" precept which is in my view the #1 reason for the Brethren's apostasy and churh members' idolatry. It brings me no pleasure whatsoever to be able to submit the following evidence to you. I'll copy and paste it here in case it's removed, but I'm quite confident the Church won't remove it because they don't have to -- members blindly believe what they say -- so they feel no need to hide evidence of their cover-ups. This is the quote:

  In the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, three documents were included for the first time. These are sections 137 and 138, setting forth the fundamentals of salvation for the dead; and Official Declaration 2, announcing that all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

  Notice anything missing from what was added "for the first time"? Let me help you. This is the year (1981) that the WW excerpts were added to OD1, along with the things mentioned in the foregoing quote. "They" don't want you to know the Satanic precept was added. They seek to cover it up. This is a "sin of omission"! I found this without even looking.

Shadow, I can tell you've not studied the Lectures on Faith. Else, you would never say something like this, "Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures" to justify impostors arrogantly removing them from our Holy Scriptures.

You speak truth, but what we don't omit is the doctrine! This is how the great and abominable whore removed "plain and precious" truths from the Bible. Committees full of vanity and corruption got together and went to war against the word of the Lord.

This is how you could benefit from studying the LoF:

• You could grow your faith in Christ.

• You could increase your knowledge of who God is.

• You could understand the nature of the Godhead. It's not what we're taught in Sunday School.

• You can learn specifically how to be exalted.

• You can learn what the Holy Spirit is. You can learn what the mind of Christ is.

• You can learn the importance of sacrifice.

• You can learn what kind of being the Father is.

• You can learn how to exercise faith.

The Lectures will change your life. Indeed, they teach us how to come unto Christ and receive life and salvation. Removing them was essentially a frontal attack on the Church's ability to teach saving truths to its members. It brought damnation upon the members.

To argue in defense of the 1921 apostles puts you in the position of arguing for the destruction of the doctrine of Christ.

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

[underdog]

"Beginning with the 1835 edition, a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the Lectures on Faith. These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, from 1834 to 1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." -The church

Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures. The Book of Mormon Prophets talk about it often that they only record a portion or part of what's in their records. Sometimes the Lord corrects it, like in 3rd Nephi, but mostly He doesn't.
There are many reasons we don't have all the records of everything in the scriptures. The nice thing is that the Lectures weren't taken from us so I'm not sure why all the murmuring.

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people.

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
People still getting an "F" on that test^^

Shadow,

I Googled that quote above and found it quoted here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s

I'd like to point out a few amazing things. The corruption is hidden in plain sight!

• 1) The quote is anonymous. Even you attributed it to "the Church." How does a "church" speak? It doesn't. This is how 17 intelligence agencies get away with lying and saying there's evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. The Brethren hide behind the Church the same way. Anonymity allows deceivers the ability to escape accountability.

• 2) The statement, "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church" is a lie. That's why it's anonymous! And yet, we find this lie in our manual, from which we study each year. We are being propagandized! The LoF WERE in fact presented as official doctrine of the Church and voted on and sustained unanimously by the body of the Church in 1835. Watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO0tCz_RICo. You will hear a very succinct explanation and this is proven by the records of history. The LoF represent the DOCTRINES of the Church stemming from Joseph's revelations, the BoM, and the Bible. In other words, it's a sort of Cliffs Notes for our doctrine, nicely packaged for the Church members and approved by the Prophet of this Dispensation. The Lectures should be the MAIN course of instruction for our missionaries. The MTC should be a concentrated dose of the Lectures on Faith. What time is wasted on Preach My Gospel! Members should be studying the Lectures regularly in Sunday School. Our Youth should have them MEMORIZED! How nice it was for the Lord to give us Cliffs Notes of the doctrine found throughout the Scriptures!!! And some liars in 1921 throw it all out!

• 3) At the Church's official webpage (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s), we also see the following cover-up of the addition of the anti Christ "we can't lead you astray" precept which is in my view the #1 reason for the Brethren's apostasy and churh members' idolatry. It brings me no pleasure whatsoever to be able to submit the following evidence to you. I'll copy and paste it here in case it's removed, but I'm quite confident the Church won't remove it because they don't have to -- members blindly believe what they say -- so they feel no need to hide evidence of their cover-ups. This is the quote:

  In the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, three documents were included for the first time. These are sections 137 and 138, setting forth the fundamentals of salvation for the dead; and Official Declaration 2, announcing that all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

  Notice anything missing from what was added "for the first time"? Let me help you. This is the year (1981) that the WW excerpts were added to OD1, along with the things mentioned in the foregoing quote. "They" don't want you to know the Satanic precept was added. They seek to cover it up. This is a "sin of omission"! I found this without even looking.

Shadow, I can tell you've not studied the Lectures on Faith. Else, you would never say something like this, "Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures" to justify impostors arrogantly removing them from our Holy Scriptures.

You speak truth, but what we don't omit is the doctrine! This is how the great and abominable whore removed "plain and precious" truths from the Bible. Committees full of vanity and corruption got together and went to war against the word of the Lord.

This is how you could benefit from studying the LoF:

• You could grow your faith in Christ.

• You could increase your knowledge of who God is.

• You could understand the nature of the Godhead. It's not what we're taught in Sunday School.

• You can learn specifically how to be exalted.

• You can learn what the Holy Spirit is. You can learn what the mind of Christ is.

• You can learn the importance of sacrifice.

• You can learn what kind of being the Father is.

• You can learn how to exercise faith.

The Lectures will change your life. Indeed, they teach us how to come unto Christ and receive life and salvation. Removing them was essentially a frontal attack on the Church's ability to teach saving truths to its members. It brought damnation upon the members.

To argue in defense of the 1921 apostles puts you in the position of arguing for the destruction of the doctrine of Christ.

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren. I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Church was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson). Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time). The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt, and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

[Arenera]

Your argument that the removal of the Lectures on Faith was debunked in 2005.
- Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith.
- Sidney Rigdon saw Christ; He left the church; He started his own church. He didn't follow his own Lectures.

The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority.

Your argument that the church is in apostasy was debunked by Joseph Smith in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You can't fix a corrupt tree with a corrupt branch.

Your agency to pursue what you have been preaching is done without authority from God, someday your foundation will crumble to dust.

[underdog]

Your argument that the removal of the Lectures on Faith was debunked in 2005.
- Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith.
- Sidney Rigdon saw Christ; He left the church; He started his own church. He didn't follow his own Lectures.

The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority.

Your argument that the church is in apostasy was debunked by Joseph Smith in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You can't fix a corrupt tree with a corrupt branch.

Your agency to pursue what you have been preaching is done without authority from God, someday your foundation will crumble to dust.

You said,

"The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority."

So you are saying that a few of the men serving as apostles have more authority than Joseph Smith? You've never directly answered that question.

The answer is OF COURSE THEY DON'T.

If you will answer that question, then you will cease repeating your false statement. And you will have to concede usurpers removed the LoF. This is a fact of our history. The Lectures were in fact removed, and it was done by men who disagreed with the Prophet, and it was done in the dark of night.

Contrast that with how Joseph handled it. First, Joseph HAD authority and two, he the vote and sustaining was done in BROAD DAYLIGHT.

1835 -- done with authority, and in the light of day.
1921 -- done WITHOUT authority and dark of night.

You can't say anything about the "dark of night" fact I present. All you can say is that the 1921 apostles knew more than Joseph did, and that you respect their authority over Joseph's. Is that how you want to play your hand? If so, go on record and SAY IT. Don't be a coward and hide in the bushes when called on it. We all here could at least respect you as having courage by coming out and proclaiming your belief that the 1921 apostles knew more than Joseph Smith. Shed your cowardice and answer the question.

I say this strongly, but with love for you. Please hold me to the same standard.

Without courage, we flounder in falsehoods and perpetuate the same.

Oh, and that's an excellent quote by Joseph Smith. It totally vindicates what I've been saying. Joseph said, as you quoted him above,

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility...

Precisely! I've listed irrefutable acts of apostasy. The Brethren have built upon THEIR OWN foundations (not Christ's) and therefore it's "the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men [the Brethren] have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood." And that is EXACTLY what we are witnessing today!! How I rejoice to live in this time! Think about it. But you esteem the things of God as things of naught and trample them under your feet.

[Mark]

"Beginning with the 1835 edition, a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the Lectures on Faith. These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, from 1834 to 1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." -The church

Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures. The Book of Mormon Prophets talk about it often that they only record a portion or part of what's in their records. Sometimes the Lord corrects it, like in 3rd Nephi, but mostly He doesn't.
There are many reasons we don't have all the records of everything in the scriptures. The nice thing is that the Lectures weren't taken from us so I'm not sure why all the murmuring.

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people.

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
People still getting an "F" on that test^^

Shadow,

I Googled that quote above and found it quoted here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s

I'd like to point out a few amazing things. The corruption is hidden in plain sight!

• 1) The quote is anonymous. Even you attributed it to "the Church." How does a "church" speak? It doesn't. This is how 17 intelligence agencies get away with lying and saying there's evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. The Brethren hide behind the Church the same way. Anonymity allows deceivers the ability to escape accountability.

• 2) The statement, "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church" is a lie. That's why it's anonymous! And yet, we find this lie in our manual, from which we study each year. We are being propagandized! The LoF WERE in fact presented as official doctrine of the Church and voted on and sustained unanimously by the body of the Church in 1835. Watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO0tCz_RICo. You will hear a very succinct explanation and this is proven by the records of history. The LoF represent the DOCTRINES of the Church stemming from Joseph's revelations, the BoM, and the Bible. In other words, it's a sort of Cliffs Notes for our doctrine, nicely packaged for the Church members and approved by the Prophet of this Dispensation. The Lectures should be the MAIN course of instruction for our missionaries. The MTC should be a concentrated dose of the Lectures on Faith. What time is wasted on Preach My Gospel! Members should be studying the Lectures regularly in Sunday School. Our Youth should have them MEMORIZED! How nice it was for the Lord to give us Cliffs Notes of the doctrine found throughout the Scriptures!!! And some liars in 1921 throw it all out!

• 3) At the Church's official webpage (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s), we also see the following cover-up of the addition of the anti Christ "we can't lead you astray" precept which is in my view the #1 reason for the Brethren's apostasy and churh members' idolatry. It brings me no pleasure whatsoever to be able to submit the following evidence to you. I'll copy and paste it here in case it's removed, but I'm quite confident the Church won't remove it because they don't have to -- members blindly believe what they say -- so they feel no need to hide evidence of their cover-ups. This is the quote:

  In the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, three documents were included for the first time. These are sections 137 and 138, setting forth the fundamentals of salvation for the dead; and Official Declaration 2, announcing that all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

  Notice anything missing from what was added "for the first time"? Let me help you. This is the year (1981) that the WW excerpts were added to OD1, along with the things mentioned in the foregoing quote. "They" don't want you to know the Satanic precept was added. They seek to cover it up. This is a "sin of omission"! I found this without even looking.

Shadow, I can tell you've not studied the Lectures on Faith. Else, you would never say something like this, "Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures" to justify impostors arrogantly removing them from our Holy Scriptures.

You speak truth, but what we don't omit is the doctrine! This is how the great and abominable whore removed "plain and precious" truths from the Bible. Committees full of vanity and corruption got together and went to war against the word of the Lord.

This is how you could benefit from studying the LoF:

• You could grow your faith in Christ.

• You could increase your knowledge of who God is.

• You could understand the nature of the Godhead. It's not what we're taught in Sunday School.

• You can learn specifically how to be exalted.

• You can learn what the Holy Spirit is. You can learn what the mind of Christ is.

• You can learn the importance of sacrifice.

• You can learn what kind of being the Father is.

• You can learn how to exercise faith.

The Lectures will change your life. Indeed, they teach us how to come unto Christ and receive life and salvation. Removing them was essentially a frontal attack on the Church's ability to teach saving truths to its members. It brought damnation upon the members.

To argue in defense of the 1921 apostles puts you in the position of arguing for the destruction of the doctrine of Christ.

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren. I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Church was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson). Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time). The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt, and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

You sound like a man of no integrity to me. You come on an anonymous forum and trash the modern LDS church ad nauseum with one accusation after another and openly declare your contempt for the leadership today proclaiming that they are apostate frauds.

Then you say you actively participate in your ward unit trying to "wake people up" to the church's apostate condition. You would be the very definition of a wolf in sheeps clothing trying to expose and debunk the church you profess dishonestly to actually care about.

I wonder if your Bishop or Stake President know of your clandescent activities here and elsewhere in trying to "expose" the church as you have here. I'm sure you hide that from those within your circle if you in fact have anything to do with the church. I would shutter at the thought of you teaching my children or grandchildren your ideas and thoughts about the church to try and weaken their testimonies of a living Prophet and Apostles. ( And I'm not referring to excommunicated apostate so called prophets).

If you had an ounce of personal integrity you would march into your Bishops office and disclose your true thoughts about the church and its leadership and turn in your recommend if you have one and ask to be released from any teaching responsibilities. You are serving within the church under false pretenses and should not be deceiving people as you surely must be doing. Of course I seriously question your activity in the church at all based on your diatribes here. I think you may be stretching the truth about that too. [-(

[Arenera]

Your argument that the removal of the Lectures on Faith was debunked in 2005.
- Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith.
- Sidney Rigdon saw Christ; He left the church; He started his own church. He didn't follow his own Lectures.

The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority.

Your argument that the church is in apostasy was debunked by Joseph Smith in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You can't fix a corrupt tree with a corrupt branch.

Your agency to pursue what you have been preaching is done without authority from God, someday your foundation will crumble to dust.

You said,

"The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority."

So you are saying that a few of the men serving as apostles have more authority than Joseph Smith? You've never directly answered that question.

The answer is OF COURSE THEY DON'T.

If you will answer that question, then you will cease repeating your false statement. And you will have to concede usurpers removed the LoF. This is a fact of our history. The Lectures were in fact removed, and it was done by men who disagreed with the Prophet, and it was done in the dark of night.

Contrast that with how Joseph handled it. First, Joseph HAD authority and two, he the vote and sustaining was done in BROAD DAYLIGHT.

1835 -- done with authority, and in the light of day.
1921 -- done WITHOUT authority and dark of night.

You can't say anything about the "dark of night" fact I present. All you can say is that the 1921 apostles knew more than Joseph did, and that you respect their authority over Joseph's. Is that how you want to play your hand? If so, go on record and SAY IT. Don't be a coward and hide in the bushes when called on it. We all here could at least respect you as having courage by coming out and proclaiming your belief that the 1921 apostles knew more than Joseph Smith. Shed your cowardice and answer the question.

I say this strongly, but with love for you. Please hold me to the same standard.

Without courage, we flounder in falsehoods and perpetuate the same.

Oh, and that's an excellent quote by Joseph Smith. It totally vindicates what I've been saying. Joseph said, as you quoted him above,

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility...

Precisely! I've listed irrefutable acts of apostasy. The Brethren have built upon THEIR OWN foundations (not Christ's) and therefore it's "the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men [the Brethren] have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood." And that is EXACTLY what we are witnessing today!! How I rejoice to live in this time! Think about it. But you esteem the things of God as things of naught and trample them under your feet.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the kingdom of God on earth at this time, continues to roll forward, eventually it will fill the whole world. Keys, authority, priesthood, covenants are all in the church. Faithful members continue to press forward.

You and others can go back 173 years if you like, and try your version. You have no keys, authority, priesthood and covenants. You have your foundation, a sandy one at best. Watch out for sink-holes.

[AI2.0]

Your argument that the removal of the Lectures on Faith was debunked in 2005.
- Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith.
- Sidney Rigdon saw Christ; He left the church; He started his own church. He didn't follow his own Lectures.

The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority.

Your argument that the church is in apostasy was debunked by Joseph Smith in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You can't fix a corrupt tree with a corrupt branch.

Your agency to pursue what you have been preaching is done without authority from God, someday your foundation will crumble to dust.

Thank you for that excellent quote. I've heard the last statement but it's what he said before which completely condemns ALL break off sects. Joseph was plagued by these break off sects of dissidents even during his time as Prophet! How anyone can not see that this completely condemns what Denver Snuffer, Jim Harmston, Roger Billings etc. have done in breaking with the LDS church and taking followers with them, I don't know.

[AI2.0]

Your argument that the removal of the Lectures on Faith was debunked in 2005.
- Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith.
- Sidney Rigdon saw Christ; He left the church; He started his own church. He didn't follow his own Lectures.

The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority.

Your argument that the church is in apostasy was debunked by Joseph Smith in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You can't fix a corrupt tree with a corrupt branch.

Your agency to pursue what you have been preaching is done without authority from God, someday your foundation will crumble to dust.

You said,

"The removal of the Lectures on Faith was proper and done with those having authority."

So you are saying that a few of the men serving as apostles have more authority than Joseph Smith? You've never directly answered that question.

The answer is OF COURSE THEY DON'T.

If you will answer that question, then you will cease repeating your false statement. And you will have to concede usurpers removed the LoF. This is a fact of our history. The Lectures were in fact removed, and it was done by men who disagreed with the Prophet, and it was done in the dark of night.

Contrast that with how Joseph handled it. First, Joseph HAD authority and two, he the vote and sustaining was done in BROAD DAYLIGHT.

1835 -- done with authority, and in the light of day.
1921 -- done WITHOUT authority and dark of night.

You can't say anything about the "dark of night" fact I present. All you can say is that the 1921 apostles knew more than Joseph did, and that you respect their authority over Joseph's. Is that how you want to play your hand? If so, go on record and SAY IT. Don't be a coward and hide in the bushes when called on it. We all here could at least respect you as having courage by coming out and proclaiming your belief that the 1921 apostles knew more than Joseph Smith. Shed your cowardice and answer the question.

I say this strongly, but with love for you. Please hold me to the same standard.

Without courage, we flounder in falsehoods and perpetuate the same.

Oh, and that's an excellent quote by Joseph Smith. It totally vindicates what I've been saying. Joseph said, as you quoted him above,

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility...

Precisely! I've listed irrefutable acts of apostasy. The Brethren have built upon THEIR OWN foundations (not Christ's) and therefore it's "the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men [the Brethren] have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood." And that is EXACTLY what we are witnessing today!! How I rejoice to live in this time! Think about it. But you esteem the things of God as things of naught and trample them under your feet.

Are you reading what Arenera quoted? It doesn't support your position AT ALL--in fact, it outright condemns your prophet's activities! Let me explain it to you clearly.

Joseph Smith is accusing all those who would break from what he restored (because they accuse him of apostasy) of being corrupt and apostate themselves, because you can't break a'branch' off of a corrupt 'tree' and expect it to be anything but corrupt--of course it's corrupt too and every time you accuse the LDS apostles and LDS church of being corrupt, you are also condemning the branch of Snufferism of being corrupt as well. Denver Snuffer was a member of the LDS church for 40 years and he has built his church off the foundation of the LDS church. Joseph Smith is condemning all those who attempt to do this.

If Denver Snuffer wants to claim to be a true prophet, he shouldn't have spent 40 years in the LDS church claiming to be a faithful, believing member, up until the time that they exed him, and THEN claiming to bring the 'truth' to the world. He's not doing that, he's effectively stealing all the content from the LDS church and then manipulating it to suit his own opinions and ideas--just like every other false prophet who's built his church on the backs of his former church.

You are so confused, I guess that's how you could find yourself with supposedly one foot in the LDS church and one foot in the Snuffer/Remnant movement.

[shadow]

• 1) The quote is anonymous. Even you attributed it to "the Church." How does a "church" speak? It doesn't. This is how 17 intelligence agencies get away with lying and saying there's evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. The Brethren hide behind the Church the same way. Anonymity allows deceivers the ability to escape accountability.

The Lectures on Faith are also somewhat anonymous. There's no history that says it's revelation or where it came from or under what conditions it came. There's even arguments about who wrote it. You really need to think things through a bit more, and I say that sincerely.

And contrary to your self proclaimed discernment regarding my lack of studying the Lectures, I have to beg to differ. I've read it, studied it and quite like it. You've proved (time and again) you have no discernment. Best wishes.

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah.'Like it happens in Utah'? Seriously, do you know that this is a problem in Utah because I live here and I don't know anything but what some people have claimed, and I'm not too certain they are in their right mind, I think some are mentally unstable. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating.Uh, let's hope. I'd think if any normal person found out there was Satan Worship going on in their ward, they'd not participate. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren.You have proof of this 'cover up'? How do you know enough about this to make such a claim? Are you in the habit of believing every crazy accusation and conspiracy crap that you come across? I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the ChurchI'm seriously wondering about your mental state to make such a claim--'coverup of WIDESPREAD Satanic ritual abuse in the church'???? Where's your evidence to make such an outrageous accusation and claim? Provide it or stop slandering the church with this garbage. This forum is supposed to be a comfortable place for believing members and I for one would NEVER be a party to a religion which practiced Satanic ritual abuse--I don't like what you are insinuating. I am offended that you would suggest that LDS members are engaged in these practices on a 'WIDESPREAD' scale.
  Better be careful, you are showing your true colors because only someone who spends a lot of time digesting garbage on vicious, lying Anti mormon websites would say this kind of stuff and believe it--that or you are mentally unwell yourself. was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson).Wow, a jack of all trades,
  considering Pres. Nelson was a heart surgeon, it's incredible he could also operate as a Neurosurgeon. Do you really believe this crap, Underdog,
  I didn't think you were that gullible, but I guess I"m wrong because you sound sincere. Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time).You've lost it. This is so outrageous, normal, thinking people don't believe this crap. Why would you believe it?? It's illogical, sensational and outlandish--time to look at yourself carefully and honestly and try to figure out how you could have fallen for such deluded conspiracy crap. The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. It IS a target by Satan--and break off sects, like the one you are in, are one of the most obvious ways that Satan has been leading people out of the Lord's true church!Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church.So here you are, claiming to be a member of the LDS church, yet you think that TWO of our Prophets conspired to kill another Prophet???? You expect us to believe your claims? Not unless you are seriously not right in the head. Either you are lying and you actually are no longer active in the church (because you think it's full of lying, murderous leaders and members who practice widespread Satanic ritual abuse)
  or you have some kind of mental limitations which prevent you from thinking clearly and cause you to believe wild, unsubstantiated, nutty theories. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental.So, you're accusing Pres. Monson and Prs. Hinckley of murdering Pres. Benson. But, you 'love' the church....yea right. Who do you think you are fooling with this charade? If you tell me you have mental issues, I'll at least consider that as a valid explanation for your ridiculous, convoluted thinking, but no other excuse gets any sympathy in my opinion. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

Snuffer wasn't 'chased' out of the church. He was given the opportunity to remain in the church and he refused. He made his choice to embrace his heretical doctrines and teachings and refused to consider he could be out of harmony. It was the height of pride and arrogance that he displayed.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

Why would you want to expose your children to a church run by murderous liars who 'cover up' WIDESPREAD Ritual Satanic Abuse??? This makes no sense. If you actually believe it's practiced in the heart of the church, then why take the chance that your children could be victimized by this????

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

Yea, if you darken the door of the church, I expect it is for appearances. Like Mark, I hope you aren't a teacher at church, you should not be living such a double life and teaching doctrines you don't even believe. Especially with your belief that our leadership are murderous, lying creeps who cover up Satanic practices. You should not be pretending to be an active, devout member when that's not what you are.

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

This makes no sense. If you really believe all the garbage you've spewed here about the church, I can't see how you'd want anyone else to become of member of such a horrible, corrupt lying institution. Something is waaaaaaay off in your thinking. If you want your son to have maturing opportunities, there are other ways than serving a mission. But, he has a testimony, I bet. Something you apparently no longer have,
but you pretend, so those around you won't be as alarmed about your hidden double life spiritual state as we are on this forum.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt,No, he doesn't. He doesn't appreciate what Snuffer is doing anymore than he appreciated what David Whitmer, James Strang or Hedrick or any others did to oppose his church and his calling as Prophet seer and revelator while he was alive. Arenera proved that with the quote shared above. Snuffer is not 'preserving the restoration' and those of you who fight against the church aren't either. You are off in the weeds and sticks, leaving the truth to embrace and join a 'corrupt branch'. and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

If the church were truly apostate, the Lord would NOT break off a branch from that apostate,
corrupt tree. He wouldn't do it. He'd have to start all over, not build on someone else's 'foundation'--just as Joseph Smith jr. said. You are NOT doing anything to preserve the restoration, you are simply lost in one of the many dissident sects spawned over the decades by unrighteous, prideful, arrogant former LDS men and women.

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

/Brother Underdog, we're doing our BEST to try to 'wake you up' but you are stubborn and close your mind and heart to plain and honest truth. The 'craftiness of men' are those who've fed you this poisonous garbage about the church and it's leaders and caused you to have no idea what's right or wrong, good or bad, truth or error. If you want to 'wake up', you are going to have to do some serious, humble soul searching and then, be honest with those around you. I'd suggest the first step is to go to your Bishop and tell him everything you've been hiding and ask him for guidance in figuring out what really is truth and how to help get you out of these mists of darkness you are mired in.

[Tecumseh]

This has been an interesting set of posts to read. There was some discussion of Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity so I thought I would see what Uncle Google had to say. I came across these videos. Both are accounts from the same woman, Elisa E.

I'm curious if any of you have run across these before. Is this old news? It's dated July 2015. What do you make of it?

Video 1: (LDS part starts at the 28 minute mark) She mentions Thomas Monson and his daughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPJBW-9Iyk8

Video 2: The same woman reports (at the 12:00 and 17:20 minute points) being involved with LDS high leadership.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNEeV6iSqhY