kittycat51 wrote: underdog wrote:
Whoa correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression you are saying that the Illuminati has infiltrated the Higher up leaders of the Church? That is just plain blasphemy to me. That which is light emits light and by their works ye shall know them. The apostles could NOT have the spirit with them if they were Illuminati, nor any of the other GA's for that matter. When they speak, I feel the spirit; have never felt otherwise. Yes I believe that Jesus knew from the start that one of his anointed was going to be a traitor. I believe that was a different story back then though and it served its purpose. God would not allow that today.
I'm not saying anything. Just asking questions is all. But you gave good insight into how your mind is wired up. If you equate the higher ups with God, even asking such a question would indicate blasphemy, wouldn't it? But are any of the GA's one and the same with God? Or might you grant that only God is perfect and infallible and we mortals (all of us) are unworthy creatures compared to Him (Ether 3:2 or Helaman 12:4-7)?
I quoted several scriptures above and there are many more that should urge us to be dependent on no man, to even trust no man
. Let's put our trust in our Lord, Whom we know will never lead us astray. Agreed?
Oh, and you wonder if me saying we should avoid putting our trust in man is a cynical opinion? Let me quote a little-known one and well-known scripture):
(a non-famous, never-quoted scripture) JST Mark 9:
44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.
45 Seek unto my Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive.
46 And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.
47 It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
48 For it is better that thyself should be saved, than to be cast into hell with thy brother, where their worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched.
Or a famous one:
2 Nephi 4:34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.
"God would not allow that today," you say. Hope you're right. But what does history say?
That's the great test isn't it? To discern truth from error.
But maybe you're right. There's no opposition INSIDE the Church. Outside yes, but inside? Never! There's a spiritual bubble protecting the leaders making them impervious to Satan. They could never fall (Mosiah 15:13). That would be nice. That would make it easy, wouldn't it? We wouldn't need to fear or tremble about salvation and we could lift up our heads and rejoice (Alma 1:4), and thank God that He had elected us to be saved (Alma 31:17).
I hope you're right about whom we can put our trust in.
Move along, move along...
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Please use your quotes from previous posts right when you respond, it's confusing.)
You just answered my question. "By their fruits ye shall know them"
Don't put words into my mouth and tell me how I think. Do I believe the brethren are perfect? Absolutely not; they will be the first to tell you that. Do I put my trust in them? Absolutely...as the spirit dictates. "Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." God WILL NOT ALLOW his church to go astray; if there are problems within, they will be taken care of. (Are you old enough to remember who George P Lee was?)
My guess is that you never listen to General Conference. Why would you? That is listening to the 'arm of flesh'. The prophet must not mean anything to you either, because that is certainly following the 'arm of flesh'.
Sorry for being so snarky. After seeing this type of disagreements on this forum many times I vowed to not ever get involved. Your original comment just soured my stomach. I now know which column you fall in.
Underdog's Reply to Kitty:
It's okay about being snarky. Actually, I disagree with you, I think you've been very nice. Thank you. I remember Br. Lee's story from 1989. I'm a long-time member, and tune in to GC every 6 months. I can quote like the best of us, but I'm repenting of what I call idolatry. I realized over a year ago that I had elevated men to the level of God and that I really believed they couldn't lead me astray.
For several hours over the course of a month or two I researched the famous OD1 where WW declares in his own words
that the Lord will not lead the church (meaning, the members) astray. I learned the following:
- 1) When that OD was added in 1908 and republished in 1921, those excerpts ("Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff") were not included. Incidentally, the LonF were removed in 1921 w/o a vote! Interesting, huh?
2) When were the excerpts added, you ask? In 1981. Was there a church-wide vote to add them? No. Was there an explicit announcement in GC? No. Was there in effect a complete cover-up of these additions by failing to make even a reference to them? Yes! Was that omission intentional? You decide.
3) I painstakingly read through the General Conference addresses in April and Oct of that year and found these additions (the WW's excerpts) were not mentioned at all.
4) Meaning, there was NO VOTE to accept that anti-Christ idea (the Lord will not permit men to lead members astray) into the body of our canon of scripture. Yes, I believe it's anti Christ 100%, and without any scriptural support whatsoever, and that there is abundant scriptures AGAINST the idea they can't lead us astray. A core tenet of Mormonism is that apostasy ALWAYS follows RESTORATION. There have been zero exceptions in history, excepting the translated people of Enoch and Melchizedek who achieved Zion. And last I checked, no modern society has been translated, not even Joseph Smith's era achieved that.
5) I read through all the magazines at lds.org for that year and finally found in the Oct 1981 Ensign (the issue before the GC issue) at least a mention of the dangerous addition. Read it for yourself here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the- ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The actual text is not mentioned, but it just says "the new additions to the text are...excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto," But this significant and unholy addition which has caused so much blindness in members like myself and you was completely omitted from the very next month's General Conference! Why? Just an oversight in the magazine, and oversight in General Conference? Or was it snuck in? How do YOU explain the Church not voting on adding "Scripture" to our Standard Works? Well, how do you?
You said: "I put my trust in them? Absolutely...as the spirit dictates. "Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same." God WILL NOT ALLOW his church to go astray; if there are problems within, they will be taken care of."
How will we know any problems will be "taken care of"? THEY will tell us? But what if THEY get called out by a regular member? You quote Elder Lee's case to substantiate your claim that problems "will be taken care of". His excommunication may have been legitimate. I understand he confessed years later to vindicate the church's decision to ex him. But you do know the church is utterly non transparent on issues of discipline, EVEN when the member being disciplined asks for
it to be open to the public, and even when the Lord COMMANDS it to be public (DC 42:81, 90-91)
. Are you okay with the policy of non transparency? And truly okay with blind obedience to what "they" say is "of God"? What does your spiritual discernment say on the matter of non transparency (keeping things hidden in the dark)? Is it good or evil, generally speaking?
That verse you quote in DC 1, the first part of verse 38 says, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken..." He's speaking in the past tense, right? He's referring to what he has just said, and with specific reference to the commandments and prophecies in the D&C, for which Section 1 became the introduction. He's not speaking of the future, but the recent PAST. To further prove the accuracy of this, he says it very clearly by using the word "it" in the part you quoted, "whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, IT
is the same." What is "it"? He's still referring to "these commandments" and "the prophecies and promises" (verse 37). You, however, are creating a blanket statement, covering all FUTURE pronouncements. Do you stand by that interpretation? Or maybe you might want to reconsider your interpretation. I too, like you, accepted blindly that false interpretation you still hold to be "gospel". Once you stop and think about that verse, your interpretation doesn't make sense. Rather, one thing you said that DOES make sense, is when you said, "as the Spirit dictates." And since the Spirit is not easy to understand all the time, we must reconcile with Scripture and reason. I have been sharing abundant scripture with you, please notice. And what I believe is reason, and what I believe the Spirit has dictated (to the best of my understanding). I'm open to correction if you can persuade me otherwise. I'm open to truth.
You said to me, "I now know which column you fall in."
Could you define the columns? Let me try:
: Those who believe that only Christ saves, there is nobody at the gate, just Jesus (2 Nephi 9:41). Christ is separate from the institution (the top 15 leaders and the other GA's). Yes, I'm in this column.
: Those who tend to equate Christ with the institution, or "the Church", meaning specifically the top leaders of the LDS Church.
Am I right? And you being in Column 2, you would probably hasten to qualify the meaning of Column 2 as the top leaders are equivalent to Christ when they speak "by the Spirit". Is that correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please explain what column 2 looks like. Or would you define Column 1 differently?
If I'm more or less on the same page with you, then I would ask you one question (which I've touched upon here already); how did the anti Christ precept of man get added to our canon in 1981 in the form of a secretly-inserted excerpt from a WW address? Or in other words, do you believe the idea that the Lord would never permit MAN to lead people astray (i.e., teach false ideas/ traditions) is of God?
After all I've said in proper context above, if you believe that precept is of Christ, and not unequivocally anti Christ, then I'll certainly respect you and allow you to worship your God according to the dictates of your conscience.