Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

For discussion of political issues in general.
User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:58 pm

Tbone wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:47 pm
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
So let me get what you are saying....you believe that a newspaper organization, should take the lead, and set the example for transparency for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints....who claims to have Christ leading the Apostles..who Christ is, per himself, The way, the truth, and the light.....you're saying the Newspaper organization should set an example of transparency for a religious institution that claims Jesus Christ, himself, is leading its apostles. ??? And the newspaper is the hypocritical ones for not doing so.....NOT the religious institution....is that what you are saying?
I believe I referred to SLT as a garbage newspaper because their commentary on Mormon topics is garbage, not for lack of transparency. I don't believe I referred to SLT as hypocrites, but they probably are and as you pointed out, so am I. I referred to FearlessFixer himself as a hypocrite for not revealing his sources, strategies, motives, and tactics. Isn't that what they want from the church? If Mormon Leaks and other exmo groups believe they are on higher ground, then yes they should "take the lead, and set the example for transparency." Otherwise, they are nothing more than hypocrites.

As far as your comment on Christ leading the apostles, I know you are mocking. However, I don't think I have as fundamentalist of a viewpoint as you appear to have, so I am okay if apostles mess up sometimes. It's disappointing and it has consequences, but they are progressing too. I believe the overall pattern makes it clear that Christ does lead this church, even if you can point out some anecdotal events where He probably did a face palm and shook His head. But in my own personal experience, the church has done me immeasurable amounts of good.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
Newspapers are supposed to provide checks and balances.....they report controversy, to make the public aware. They are an integral part of the United States and its founding.......they rat out the rats, and sometimes they are the rats, but they provide opposition, just like opposing parties do in government...TO GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE.
I don't think we disagree here. However, I want a press that reports facts. If they are going to report controversy, then they better base it on facts and not become propaganda.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
No...I don't support hypocrisy....so you realize You're the Bias one....can you say...hypocrite? Pull the beam out of your own eye.
This one kind of made me laugh. Am I biased? Definitely, but hopefully I am not ignorant. Am I a hypocrite? Probably, but I can't see for sure because of the beam in my eye.

But it's always someone else who has the beam, right? We all need to be careful around you TrueIntent. You know, since you are the one here that is worthy to cast the first stone. I am not worthy, but I chucked one anyways.
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:50 pm
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press.........why???? It's all about checks and balances....as soon as people get a little power they exercise unrighteous dominion no matter whether it's religion, politics, or news. Checks and balances.
I'm cool with the freedom of speech. I am glad we have it. However, the press's speech needs to based on facts or its libel and slander, and when it is just one sided, it is nothing more than propaganda like the SLT (and Deseret News on the other side). The church has certainly faced plenty of that over the years.
I'm not trying to cast stones. I was just taught, what it says in the official declaration of D&c by wilford woodruff, that even if a prophet leads you astray you will be blessed, but that god will not allow it....that's a false doctrine...I've just matured in my understanding of scripture over the last couple years....I just don't understand why people will not acknowlege that the church deliberately withheld and mislead members,...also, we reap what we sow, so we are getting pushback because this was poorly handled by the church, in my opinion, this will die when the church comes fully clean...just like a person who fully repents........what do you think Uchdorf was referring to when he said in general conference..."we've made mistakes". The pattern in d&c is that the church is far form perfect and they make mistakes...they are scolded by the Lord..(we just don't see revelations like that anymore)...but it's not that these men don't know it was an err.

If I'm being honest, it's the older apostles that come off arrogant and dishonest to me....yes, dishonest. Some of them speak out of both sides of their mouth. The pattern in scripture is that even the twelve, Judas himself, was influenced by Satan. I don't dispute that the church does a lot of good. But Tares go all the way to the top. There are wheat at the top too. ...but in my opinion I have recently come across some videos, just like the above, where certain apostles are diliberatly manipulative in their speech. It's about justification and rationalization...people with biases are just less aware of these patterns of speech, but those who are aware and are less bias, that's why this makes headlines.

If anyone is interested, it is useful (if you're willing to look at yourself), to study communications styles or Narcassissts, passive aggressives, and manipulative personalities. We all see things through our own lenses, however, there are some communication styles that attach motive and control....this people are dishonest about why the want to influence you...you will uncover hypocrisiys over time, but they will never acknowledge it, because it means loss of power or control....so when I find people willing to own up....I appreciate it,...it shows an imperfect person, whose doing their best and knows they are flawed....they will take specific ownership,.....in the interview above, where they turn the question back on the victim...you make mistakes too..blah blah....that's highly manipulative. Highly. There are patterns (these patterns are found in scripture....). Intention matters, motive matters, when a person is communicating. People make mistakes all the time...but the Intention of the individual is usually uncovered over repeated interactions.

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

Vision
captain of 100
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:59 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Vision » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:41 am

Mark wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:10 pm
declared themselves to be infallible or completely void of any faults or failings. Just the opposite in fact
Mark stating from the pulpit that the prophet will never lead you astray is pretty much a claim of infallibility.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:52 am

Vision wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:41 am
Mark wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:10 pm
declared themselves to be infallible or completely void of any faults or failings. Just the opposite in fact
Mark stating from the pulpit that the prophet will never lead you astray is pretty much a claim of infallibility.
Mark, I have heard this paraphrased and quoted countless times over the pulpit...I used to believe it myself....you will find it in the official declaration of your scriptures behind doctrine and covenants . The leadership has quoted or paraphrased it in general conference as well many times..pointing to themselves ....it's false teaching, it reminds me of the line in th video.....tell everyone you know to "trust us"....that really made me feel uncomfortable.
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

Vision
captain of 100
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:59 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Vision » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:57 am

Sarah wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:12 pm
Their message is that the Lord restored his Church.

The Lord never restored the Church, he restored the Priesthood with the saving ordinances and with that Priesthood the Church was organized.

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Joel » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:29 am

For reference
Joel wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:35 pm
Before the photoshop job :)

Michelle
captain of 100
Posts: 609
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Michelle » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:39 am

TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:34 pm
Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:16 pm
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pm
Michelle wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm
Not taking the time to learn something, is not the same as it being hidden.

I find this kind of thinking in people all the time with all kinds of topics. (One example might be UN Agenda 21 and 2030. When I tell people what it says they say it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they refuse to go and read it for themselves. It isn't even that long or hard. Another would be when I quote the Law of Moses. So many people haven't ever read the Old Testament and think there is no way the Lord addressed so many topics that modern science has just recently began to understand and teach, of course without credit to God. Just a couple of examples of truth being available, but people not willing to learn for themselves.)

I don't have time to make a list, but my dad told me as a kid that a lot of the mistakes he made in his life were because he listened to the brethren and then they changed. Funny thing, I went back and read the General Conference talks for the times he speaks of, and they absolutely refute what he is saying. So really, either he didn't listen and learn, or he heard what he wanted to hear.

As for it being hard to find these sources, not at all. Long before the internet we had the History of the Church written by Joseph Smith. We had many books written by prophets and apostles. There were printed General Conference compilations (I use to find the old ones at DI.) For those with pioneer ancestors, we even had the written history of our family members, if we were doing family history as we should. There are plenty of sources. But since at least the advent of television (and certainly before) many people have chosen to spend their free time idling it away instead of studying the truth. They have their agency to do so, but they can't claim it was hidden, only that they were slothful in studying.

One more point. Elder Ballard gave one example. There are more. Should he have taken the time to run down an exhaustive list of references while answering this question? That would certainly have gone over well, right? Can you imagine General Conference talks like that? Just a list of references after every claim? Luckily, the GC talks are printed and sources listed there. With the internet it is not hard to find plenty of sources to back up Elder Ballards claims. Again, not his job to spoon feed. He answered. He provided and example. We are free to continue learning on our own time.

As far as I can tell the two men who wrote the article are only trying to stir up contention and putting on display their own ignorance.
Could be stirring up contention....however, you could say the same thing about the scrptures. If it weren't for opposition, we would not be able to sort out the good from evil. Just because something isnt received by others doesn't mean it isn't true, or good, or of value. The Old Testament for example....as a seminary student...my teacher glossed over stories like Lot sleeping with his daughters...but that's a reflection of the teacher....she was uncomfortable with the information.....same thing with church history...it's not taught or hidden because we are uncomfortable as a church with it. I became more comfortable with it when I realized apostles can be bigots, racists and chauvinist in the early church, just like everyone else at the time was...my generation is not comfortable with how general authorities have handled history....because we are taught what plagerism is, and taking quotes out of context...I'm a journalism major...it's what the media gets blasted for...it's the political spin....we just do it as a church with religion. How polygamy was practiced in their day, is what we would call adultery in ours. Times change, culture changes....doctrine does not...god does not. but even the doctrine vs. principles debate is another manipulation....now we're saying...oh but that wasn't a doctrine...it was just a principle....it's the church trying to cover its butt and blame members for following things they were taught to but shouldn't have. It's like bill Clinton saying...define "is"....we say...define what was taught,...doctrine, principle, or just some old guys opinion.
Your kind of proving my point.The story of Lot is interesting because there is a Joseph Smith Translation that he did not offer his daughters to the men of the city, they demanded the girls and he refused. Secondly, Lot did not consent to his daughters actions with him, they tricked him. How is he to blame?

A little research answers a lot of questions.

If you are simply stating that your teacher tried to hide the story. That is on her, not the whole church. Did you not have your own scriptures? Search and know for yourself.

I still disagree about who is responsible with regard to learning. I cannot change anothers actions, only my own. It is not on them to spoon feed us, it is on us to just look. It almost seems it is because of the easiness of the way that so many refuse to learn. The church has already made the info available, it is on us to learn. I think they bend over backwards to meet people where they are at and make it as easy as possible, througout history with the various technologies available, for us to learn and know for ourselves. We literally have people visit our homes to teach us, we have church that is long enough each Sunday to cause people to complain, they print magazines for the various age groups, they make available lesson manuals for free online and they will even give you a hard copy of the books we use at church each year for our study. Not to mention with modern technology they have invested in printing the Joseph Smith Papers, something that would have been harder to do in the past, and even made videos of the Bible and are working on the Book of Mormon for those to lazy to read. This is not even a comprehensive list. The resources the church provides for us to learn are so extensive it would be hard to "consume" all the media they create just for the purpose of learning and making it as easy as possible.

I was actually referring to the part of Lots daughters getting their father drunk and sleeping with them....and yes....I read it in my own scriptures at 16 years old...you do realize that Christ descended through these daughters children bloodline..this was the chosen bloodline...it's not what you think, .my point also wasn't to diss my seminary teacher...my point was to say there are things we don't discuss because in our day, because it's adultery or pedophilia....there are explainations but they require spirit led revelation and a willingness to acknowledge that men are flawed and they err...even when their name is written in scripture...and it's not what we perceive outwardly.

It's interesting that you say their job is not to spoon feed us.....why all the lesson manuals, conference talks, church programs, and handbooks if they aren't spoon feeding us already....it's what they are spoon feeding us that matters, at least to me anyway.

I think you're ignorant or just plain bias....journals of discourses was made available, and it doesn't take 20 years to get the Joseph smith papers online,..,the Internet has been around for a long time. You're making excuses....you just won't acknowledge it. The church has printed and complied vast manuals with detailed quotes from historical documents...and we couldn't get the Joseph smith papers online until now?

I'm not trying to argue with you...the facts are obvious, information has been withheld deliberately. I don't need you to accept this.......so what if you acknowledge that what I say may be true? How would this change you and your understanding? Would it be painful to acknowledge this? If you did, you would have to change your testimony, or understanding of the church? It's not as painful of a process as you might think....but the adversary would have us believe it's much worse than it is.
I suppose we have just had different witnesses of the Spirit in this regard. I am very comfortable with the state of the Church leadership, it is the general membership that worries me. It seems most problems stem from having to meet weak members where they are at more than weak leaders. When I refer to the leaders I do mean the First Pres and 12. Outside of that many are just members in positions administering and doing their best.

I actually have no problem with the First Pres and 12 not being perfect either. The scriptures are full of accounts of the prophets of old struggling with their callings. They are just people, but the best people God has to work with. I often think of Lehi and Daniel and how heavy their burden was.
1 Nephi 1:7 And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen.
Daniel 8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the aking’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
I guess with people so critical of their efforts, it must be hard to decide when to speak and when to stay silent on issues that are so easily misunderstood. But I also believe they are led by the Spirit to sometimes speak and sometimes stay silent. Think of Elder Oaks talk from the last General Conference where he said,
The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement.8 Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng
I have had similar experiences where the Spirit has given me direction I was suprised by, but not opposed to. Only after I acted did I receive the witness of "why."

Is it so hard to believe they share such experiences of acting of faith instead of the foolishness of flesh and then being criticized by those who should be able to receive the same witness.

There were times when Christ himself answered his critics, times when he directed his comments to the crowd and not the critic, times when he stayed silent.

Was Christ willfully, wickedly and deliberately withholding information when he spake in parables that even his apostles had trouble understanding? Or was he speaking in a way that those with ears to hear and eyes to see would understand?
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Edit: I just thought I'd add that my dad is a serious anti-mormon and has been much of my life (even though in his younger years he served as a bishop.) He has a website to help people leave the church and at least in the past has spent time harrassing missionaries at temple square. Really, I don't think there is much left that I haven't heard as "evidence" for either the church not being true or the brethren being terrible or any other version of anti-mormon rhetoric. Still, I know this is God's church on the earth at this time, the brethren are inspired and whatever the weakness of men, the work will roll forward and I know which side I choose.

Juliet
captain of 100
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:30 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Juliet » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:12 am

I wish the temple recommend question was do we sustain the church leaders as they act in harmony with the Holy Spirit. The way the question is worded now seems gestapo. Why do we teach to follow the prophet? This culture is not appropriate. We are to listen to the Holy Spirit and through it sustain the words said by those called as prophets as prophetic. D&C 50 tells us to use discernment because many false spirits are received by members and leaders that are not of God. So, does the prophet teach by the Spirit of truth, or by some other way? If it is some other way, it is not of God. We sustain them folks, we sustain them. Let's be responsible for who we sustain because it is our obligation to take upon us the name of Christ and do what Jesus would do, to stand up for truth and righteousness at all times, things and places. The prophets lead in a telestial world. When that changes, their keys will be given back to Jesus Christ.

Tbone
captain of 100
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Right here

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Tbone » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:15 am

TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:58 pm
I'm not trying to cast stones. I was just taught, what it says in the official declaration of D&c by wilford woodruff, that even if a prophet leads you astray you will be blessed, but that god will not allow it....that's a false doctrine...I've just matured in my understanding of scripture over the last couple years....I just don't understand why people will not acknowlege that the church deliberately withheld and mislead members,...also, we reap what we sow, so we are getting pushback because this was poorly handled by the church, in my opinion, this will die when the church comes fully clean...just like a person who fully repents........what do you think Uchdorf was referring to when he said in general conference..."we've made mistakes". The pattern in d&c is that the church is far form perfect and they make mistakes...they are scolded by the Lord..(we just don't see revelations like that anymore)...but it's not that these men don't know it was an err.

If I'm being honest, it's the older apostles that come off arrogant and dishonest to me....yes, dishonest. Some of them speak out of both sides of their mouth. The pattern in scripture is that even the twelve, Judas himself, was influenced by Satan. I don't dispute that the church does a lot of good. But Tares go all the way to the top. There are wheat at the top too. ...but in my opinion I have recently come across some videos, just like the above, where certain apostles are diliberatly manipulative in their speech. It's about justification and rationalization...people with biases are just less aware of these patterns of speech, but those who are aware and are less bias, that's why this makes headlines.

If anyone is interested, it is useful (if you're willing to look at yourself), to study communications styles or Narcassissts, passive aggressives, and manipulative personalities. We all see things through our own lenses, however, there are some communication styles that attach motive and control....this people are dishonest about why the want to influence you...you will uncover hypocrisiys over time, but they will never acknowledge it, because it means loss of power or control....so when I find people willing to own up....I appreciate it,...it shows an imperfect person, whose doing their best and knows they are flawed....they will take specific ownership,.....in the interview above, where they turn the question back on the victim...you make mistakes too..blah blah....that's highly manipulative. Highly. There are patterns (these patterns are found in scripture....). Intention matters, motive matters, when a person is communicating. People make mistakes all the time...but the Intention of the individual is usually uncovered over repeated interactions.
I don't really find too much I disagree with here and I would never argue that "all is well in zion." I haven't had a ton of encounters with GA's, but I've had enough to realize I don't like all of them personally. However, I would be extremely cautious about saying I was mislead and I would be much more cautious about criticizing apostles by calling them dishonest, arrogant and narcissistic, even if it were true. I think the path you are going down is far more dangerous than you realize, not so much because you've matured in your understanding and realize it could be true, but because of what Joseph Smith said:
I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.
I don't like it when people throw quotes like that at me, so I really hope you don't find it offensive. I am confident you are a wonderful person and are doing your best to do what is right, but even though I believe I recognize what you are saying, I couldn't go along with that attitude because I believe Joseph Smith is 100% correct.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 100
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:27 am
Location: Kolob wannabe

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby kittycat51 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:02 am

skmo wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:56 pm
When I saw it was a commentary from the SL Trib, I knew all I needed to know. Whether there was any validity in their topic or not, its ultimate goal would be to create a thorn in the side of the LDS Church. It would be similar to asking the hildabeast to explain the most honest points about Bill Clinton's character.
DITTO here! I saw that it was from the SL Trib and I just turned my nose. Correct me if I'm wrong for those in the SL valley; what is that billboard that the Tribune has up on 1-15, something to the effect..."We exist because they don't want us to". "They" being the dominant religion in the State. THAT shows you what kind of newspaper they are. One that just wants to stir up controversy. whether it be fact based or not. :twisted:
'You'll never medicate your way out of diseases you behave yourself into" ~Dr. Roby Mitchell

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2425
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:08 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Finrock » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:17 am

Juliet wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:12 am
I wish the temple recommend question was do we sustain the church leaders as they act in harmony with the Holy Spirit. The way the question is worded now seems gestapo. Why do we teach to follow the prophet? This culture is not appropriate. We are to listen to the Holy Spirit and through it sustain the words said by those called as prophets as prophetic. D&C 50 tells us to use discernment because many false spirits are received by members and leaders that are not of God. So, does the prophet teach by the Spirit of truth, or by some other way? If it is some other way, it is not of God. We sustain them folks, we sustain them. Let's be responsible for who we sustain because it is our obligation to take upon us the name of Christ and do what Jesus would do, to stand up for truth and righteousness at all times, things and places. The prophets lead in a telestial world. When that changes, their keys will be given back to Jesus Christ.
I used to think that because I was so evil, wicked, and worthless that I was all alone in life. I didn't feel and I didn't believe that Jesus Christ was with me, helping me, or sustaining me. Then one day all of this changed. When I was ready to believe and ready to accept Jesus, He came to me and washed away all of my sins and made me clean. After this event I was able to discern with my spiritual eyes and looking back on my life and I now knew that Jesus Christ was always with me. He had never abandoned me, and was constantly supporting me and blessing me, even when I was acting wickedly.

I learned from this that a person doesn't need to be acting in all righteousness or always be doing the right things in order for me to sustain them. Jesus was sustaining me all along no matter what I did, so it would be hypocritical of me to demand that others live up to my expectations before I sustain them.

God is merciful, kind, good hearted, meek, and submissive. He doesn't abandon us and He blesses both the wicked and the righteous. I believe I need to be the same in how I treat others, including the leaders of the Church.

-Finrock
"You can't reason with a wolf" -rewcox

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3470
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:07 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby AI2.0 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:24 am

FearlessFixxer wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:50 pm
inho wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:34 pm
larsenb wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:04 pm
Are they even active members?
Isn't FearlessFixxer one of the authors himself, isn't he Ryan McKnight who is behind the MormonLeaks page? I don't think he is a member at all anymore.
Guilty as charged
The Irony. You criticize the church for being less than honest--but to do so, you post a thread, about your own article and fail to mention you are one of the authors and you aren't even a member anymore??

If Inho hadn't brought it up, we wouldn't know this. You lost my confidence right there. Why weren't you just up front about it in your OP?

Considering that honesty and openness is your crusade, I'd would have expected you to set the example....
"...the ultimate most annoying person on this forum, A.120!"

Plato — 'One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.'

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:30 am

Tbone wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:15 am
TrueIntent wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:58 pm
I'm not trying to cast stones. I was just taught, what it says in the official declaration of D&c by wilford woodruff, that even if a prophet leads you astray you will be blessed, but that god will not allow it....that's a false doctrine...I've just matured in my understanding of scripture over the last couple years....I just don't understand why people will not acknowlege that the church deliberately withheld and mislead members,...also, we reap what we sow, so we are getting pushback because this was poorly handled by the church, in my opinion, this will die when the church comes fully clean...just like a person who fully repents........what do you think Uchdorf was referring to when he said in general conference..."we've made mistakes". The pattern in d&c is that the church is far form perfect and they make mistakes...they are scolded by the Lord..(we just don't see revelations like that anymore)...but it's not that these men don't know it was an err.

If I'm being honest, it's the older apostles that come off arrogant and dishonest to me....yes, dishonest. Some of them speak out of both sides of their mouth. The pattern in scripture is that even the twelve, Judas himself, was influenced by Satan. I don't dispute that the church does a lot of good. But Tares go all the way to the top. There are wheat at the top too. ...but in my opinion I have recently come across some videos, just like the above, where certain apostles are diliberatly manipulative in their speech. It's about justification and rationalization...people with biases are just less aware of these patterns of speech, but those who are aware and are less bias, that's why this makes headlines.

If anyone is interested, it is useful (if you're willing to look at yourself), to study communications styles or Narcassissts, passive aggressives, and manipulative personalities. We all see things through our own lenses, however, there are some communication styles that attach motive and control....this people are dishonest about why the want to influence you...you will uncover hypocrisiys over time, but they will never acknowledge it, because it means loss of power or control....so when I find people willing to own up....I appreciate it,...it shows an imperfect person, whose doing their best and knows they are flawed....they will take specific ownership,.....in the interview above, where they turn the question back on the victim...you make mistakes too..blah blah....that's highly manipulative. Highly. There are patterns (these patterns are found in scripture....). Intention matters, motive matters, when a person is communicating. People make mistakes all the time...but the Intention of the individual is usually uncovered over repeated interactions.
I don't really find too much I disagree with here and I would never argue that "all is well in zion." I haven't had a ton of encounters with GA's, but I've had enough to realize I don't like all of them personally. However, I would be extremely cautious about saying I was mislead and I would be much more cautious about criticizing apostles by calling them dishonest, arrogant and narcissistic, even if it were true. I think the path you are going down is far more dangerous than you realize, not so much because you've matured in your understanding and realize it could be true, but because of what Joseph Smith said:
I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.
I don't like it when people throw quotes like that at me, so I really hope you don't find it offensive. I am confident you are a wonderful person and are doing your best to do what is right, but even though I believe I recognize what you are saying, I couldn't go along with that attitude because I believe Joseph Smith is 100% correct.
I wasn't specifically trying to call any apostles narcassistic....I'm not a therapist, HOwever, there are a couple in particular that have very manipulative communication styles...I don't know how they are in their private life, but I can guess based on some ways they communicate over the pulpit....Oaks in particular uses lots of put downs, and shaming...he leads with an I'm right and you're wrong, and he justifies what he's saying with manipulation....there was a video someone posted where he said the church doesn't give apologies....but it's the reason he gave why that concerned me....he said something to the effect of that the word "apology" is found no where in scripture.....that is a classic manipulation of words....political spin on definitions....because broken heart, contrition spirit, and confession is found all over scripture, maybe the word apology isn't, but the intention is.

I realize people say things they don't mean, and we should offer mercy that maybe he didn't mean what he said the way he said it, But over time, people like oaks establish patterns of communication that reveal that yes...they did mean what they said the way they said it.

As for questioning the church and it leading to apostasy...I don't question the "church" as a living institution, that in d&c the Lord said he was happy with, collectiviely , not individual...but living also means subject to all the flaws or pits based on where we are spiritually. As a whole, the church is a great institution. I believe it's perfectly okay to discuss with a good spirit, what may or may not be in line with the teachings of Christ. Joseph and all the early church leaders did this. I don't believe that I am righteous....I'm just trying to understand and make sense of all this mess..and give myself reasons to stay active and believe.

But there are things that I can not deny, like church history was withheld to mislead members....why???? I have guesses, maybe some of these guys like the praise and respect they receive, maybe they don't like to be questioned....maybe they were worried members would leave the church and stop beliving so they lied, not because the members couldn't handle it, but because they couldn't handle the failure occurring under their watch...a lot of these guys are businessmen....the thing is, I've stayed, I've just stopped believing that I couldn't receive divine revelation for myself. I used to just believe the brethren could receive it for me......in general...elder oaks personality reflects what a good chunk of what the membership believe....to me uchdorf reaches a very different group of individuals....they're preaching to the body...and some walk away identifying with what oaks taught, others, uchdorf....some a little here or there.....the key is to walk away from general conference and identify with specifically all those things that Christ taught...,that's my personal opinion anyway. But we too often assume, all the brethren speak on behalf of Christ, Not so.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:36 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby brlenox » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:45 am

Juliet wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:12 am
I wish the temple recommend question was do we sustain the church leaders as they act in harmony with the Holy Spirit. The way the question is worded now seems gestapo. Why do we teach to follow the prophet? This culture is not appropriate. We are to listen to the Holy Spirit and through it sustain the words said by those called as prophets as prophetic. D&C 50 tells us to use discernment because many false spirits are received by members and leaders that are not of God. So, does the prophet teach by the Spirit of truth, or by some other way? If it is some other way, it is not of God. We sustain them folks, we sustain them. Let's be responsible for who we sustain because it is our obligation to take upon us the name of Christ and do what Jesus would do, to stand up for truth and righteousness at all times, things and places. The prophets lead in a telestial world. When that changes, their keys will be given back to Jesus Christ.

This presupposes that you have the Holy Spirit and can discern that they lack the same.

Why would you think that you have greater access to that spirit than those called of the Lord would have?

How would you discern that your guidance is from the Holy Spirit and theirs is not?

Tbone
captain of 100
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Right here

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Tbone » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:47 am

TrueIntent wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:30 am
I realize people say things they don't mean, and we should offer mercy that maybe he didn't mean what he said the way he said it, But over time, people like oaks establish patterns of communication that reveal that yes...they did mean what they said the way they said it.
Yeah, I believe if there was any apostle that means exactly and precisely what he says, Elder Oaks would be the one.

You mentioned President Uchtdorf. I have met him, by the way, and I love that man more than I can express for some very personal reasons that I won't share publicly (nothing serious, just personal). However, I have known people that have worked with him in the church and I can tell you he can be extremely stern, and maybe even harsh, when things don't meet his expectations. I really love his talks and you are right, he speaks to a different audience. I often wonder if that causes any sort of tension among the 12.

Anyway, I've enjoyed chatting with you, TrueIntent, but I think I will stop now. I hope you have a good day.
Last edited by Tbone on Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

larsenb
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4137
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:32 pm
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby larsenb » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:04 am

Michelle wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:39 am
. . . . . . Edit: I just thought I'd add that my dad is a serious anti-mormon and has been much of my life (even though in his younger years he served as a bishop.) He has a website to help people leave the church and at least in the past has spent time harrassing missionaries at temple square. Really, I don't think there is much left that I haven't heard as "evidence" for either the church not being true or the brethren being terrible or any other version of anti-mormon rhetoric. Still, I know this is God's church on the earth at this time, the brethren are inspired and whatever the weakness of men, the work will roll forward and I know which side I choose.
Wow! That would be tough. The father of one of my best friends when I was a kid, left the Church and became an inveterate anti-Mormon. Even wrote books about it. He has been mentioned in this thread, as I recall, and was associated with the Tanners.

To my knowledge, his wife and all his kids left the Church. His obit, a few years ago, even asked people to contribute to: "Citizens for Global Solutions". He moved from being a Mormon, to being an undifferentiated Christian, to being a Statist Globalist, is the strong implication.

This of course is a common pathway for those who leave the Church or give up religion. They buy into the idea that global governance will solve all our problems: end war, equalize everybody, save the earth, etc.

larsenb
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4137
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:32 pm
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby larsenb » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:06 am

Tbone wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:47 am
TrueIntent wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:30 am
I realize people say things they don't mean, and we should offer mercy that maybe he didn't mean what he said the way he said it, But over time, people like oaks establish patterns of communication that reveal that yes...they did mean what they said the way they said it.
. . . .

You mentioned President Uchtdorf. I have met him, by the way, and I love that man more than I can express for some very personal reasons that I won't share publicly (nothing serious, just personal). However, I have known people that have worked with him in the church and I can tell you he can be extremely stern, and maybe even harsh, when things don't meet his expectations. I really love his talks and you are right, he speaks to a different audience. I often wonder if that causes any sort of tension among the 12. . . . . .
You may want to edit that name. The way you spell it could be taken as deprecation of the man.
Last edited by larsenb on Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tbone
captain of 100
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Right here

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Tbone » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:09 am

larsenb wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:06 am
You may want to edit that name. The way you spell it could be taken as deprecation of the man.
Yikes!! Thank you so much! Would you please do me the favor and edit my quote in your post???

User avatar
5tev3
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby 5tev3 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:31 pm

As for the first vision accounts, here is some additional insight on the matter from my own experience. Several years ago I was reading my mission journal and noticing how much I didn't record. I decided to write a book and take the time to fill in as many holes as I could remember. It was actually really astounding to me that with some of my more profound experiences I was very brief and enigmatic. To be honest I wasn't mature enough to really understand the magnitude of what I had experienced and the value of recording a detailed witness. When that kind of thing happens and is fresh in your mind you don't think you will ever forget. I haven't forgotten, but if I had died, I would have taken that knowledge to the grave.

So there is one version of events in my mission journal, and other versions I told to various people throughout the years. Depending on who I was talking to I was more or less specific and focused on different aspects of what the experience meant and what I learned from it. I knew of the first vision accounts early on and because of my own experiences with telling sacred events differently, this didn't bother me at all. As I grew older (about 8 years after the events) and was writing my book, I took time to really get down into the nitty-gritty details as much as I could. As time has gone on, I have told parts of the story and different people would get different parts depending on the situation.

As someone who has experienced sacred things myself, I can attest to the extreme difficulty in expressing some things that have no direct correlation in our world. You tell it one way using certain language and another way another time. For some reason when God is involved, multiple layers of meaning are communicated simultaneously. Sometimes you'll tell one part without even mentioning the other and vice versa and sometimes you tell as much of it as you can. I supposed if someone analyzed all of my accounts they would cry foul as well. If it was just a memorized lie, I think you would expect to see the exact same story told the exact same way each time. Everyone will have an opinion and since Joseph isn't here any more all we can do is speculate and share our own ideas.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2425
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:08 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Finrock » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:29 pm

5tev3 wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:31 pm
As for the first vision accounts, here is some additional insight on the matter from my own experience. Several years ago I was reading my mission journal and noticing how much I didn't record. I decided to write a book and take the time to fill in as many holes as I could remember. It was actually really astounding to me that with some of my more profound experiences I was very brief and enigmatic. To be honest I wasn't mature enough to really understand the magnitude of what I had experienced and the value of recording a detailed witness. When that kind of thing happens and is fresh in your mind you don't think you will ever forget. I haven't forgotten, but if I had died, I would have taken that knowledge to the grave.

So there is one version of events in my mission journal, and other versions I told to various people throughout the years. Depending on who I was talking to I was more or less specific and focused on different aspects of what the experience meant and what I learned from it. I knew of the first vision accounts early on and because of my own experiences with telling sacred events differently, this didn't bother me at all. As I grew older (about 8 years after the events) and was writing my book, I took time to really get down into the nitty-gritty details as much as I could. As time has gone on, I have told parts of the story and different people would get different parts depending on the situation.

As someone who has experienced sacred things myself, I can attest to the extreme difficulty in expressing some things that have no direct correlation in our world. You tell it one way using certain language and another way another time. For some reason when God is involved, multiple layers of meaning are communicated simultaneously. Sometimes you'll tell one part without even mentioning the other and vice versa and sometimes you tell as much of it as you can. I supposed if someone analyzed all of my accounts they would cry foul as well. If it was just a memorized lie, I think you would expect to see the exact same story told the exact same way each time. Everyone will have an opinion and since Joseph isn't here any more all we can do is speculate and share our own ideas.
This is very true. Spiritual experiences take time to fully understand, assimilate, and to make sense of. Certain aspects of the experience are also more relevant at different times or circumstances, so you might focus on those aspects, which in no way deny the other at the moment unspoken aspects of the experience.

-Finrock
"You can't reason with a wolf" -rewcox

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:16 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Mark » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:52 pm

TrueIntent wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:52 am
Vision wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:41 am
Mark wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:10 pm
declared themselves to be infallible or completely void of any faults or failings. Just the opposite in fact
Mark stating from the pulpit that the prophet will never lead you astray is pretty much a claim of infallibility.
Mark, I have heard this paraphrased and quoted countless times over the pulpit...I used to believe it myself....you will find it in the official declaration of your scriptures behind doctrine and covenants . The leadership has quoted or paraphrased it in general conference as well many times..pointing to themselves ....it's false teaching, it reminds me of the line in th video.....tell everyone you know to "trust us"....that really made me feel uncomfortable.
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
I have addressed this multiple times in the past but just for the record again if you go to section 107 the Lord answers this for you.

79 And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.

80 And after this decision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest council of the church of God, and a final decision upon controversies in spiritual matters.

81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.

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

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

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

Now remember the laws of God are done in order according to truth and righteousness. That is why Priesthood Govt as set up by the Lord is so critical to the operations of the kingdom. If the President of the High Priesthood transgresses those laws in his stewardship role he will be dealt with righteously thru Priesthood Govt. councils just like the Lord has outlined in section 107. At that point the controversy is over. Now If you believe all of these Priesthood Govt. councils set up in TCOJCOLDS have become corrupted well then there really isnt anything else for us to talk about. Our divide would be just to great. You would be better suited to just go join another organization like Snuffers or Harmstons or ... ad naseum and take your chances. Cheers.
You are a true nothing Mark.

gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby gardener4life » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:03 pm

If you talk to some of the old timers in your ward that are still around a lot of them will tell you that paper has always been a hard liner stance against the church. They will tell you when J.F. Smith was prophet they attacked him relentlessly. They have a history of being hard liner anti mormons for yearssssssss. You can go back and look at their archive and see that they've published anti-mormon articles for a long time.

What I don't get is why people buy their paper? It doesn't do good to have someone destroying faith in your area, so why support that paper? People should just all at once boycott that paper.

larsenb
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4137
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:32 pm
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby larsenb » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:22 pm

gardener4life wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:03 pm
If you talk to some of the old timers in your ward that are still around a lot of them will tell you that paper has always been a hard liner stance against the church. They will tell you when J.F. Smith was prophet they attacked him relentlessly. They have a history of being hard liner anti mormons for yearssssssss. You can go back and look at their archive and see that they've published anti-mormon articles for a long time.

What I don't get is why people buy their paper? It doesn't do good to have someone destroying faith in your area, so why support that paper? People should just all at once boycott that paper.
Apparently Paul Huntsman, a son of Jon Huntsman, Sr., bought the Tribune. I wonder if that will change their anti-LDS stance? Maybe it will start giving us balanced information regarding Pres. Trump, in opposition to the Deseret News?? ;)

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:45 pm

larsenb wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:06 am
Tbone wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:47 am
TrueIntent wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:30 am
I realize people say things they don't mean, and we should offer mercy that maybe he didn't mean what he said the way he said it, But over time, people like oaks establish patterns of communication that reveal that yes...they did mean what they said the way they said it.
. . . .

You mentioned President Uchtdorf. I have met him, by the way, and I love that man more than I can express for some very personal reasons that I won't share publicly (nothing serious, just personal). However, I have known people that have worked with him in the church and I can tell you he can be extremely stern, and maybe even harsh, when things don't meet his expectations. I really love his talks and you are right, he speaks to a different audience. I often wonder if that causes any sort of tension among the 12. . . . . .
You may want to edit that name. The way you spell it could be taken as deprecation of the man.


I'm no respecter of persons, I misspell his name, along with many others. I type on an iPad, and sometimes a cellphone with two thumbs....i don't give much for spelling, because it already takes longer than I would like to type, and spell check doesn't show like it does on my computer, and sometimes I don't even proofread,...whoa!!!! I know...just irreverent.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby TrueIntent » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:08 pm

Mark wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:52 pm
TrueIntent wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:52 am
Vision wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:41 am
Mark wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:10 pm
declared themselves to be infallible or completely void of any faults or failings. Just the opposite in fact
Mark stating from the pulpit that the prophet will never lead you astray is pretty much a claim of infallibility.
Mark, I have heard this paraphrased and quoted countless times over the pulpit...I used to believe it myself....you will find it in the official declaration of your scriptures behind doctrine and covenants . The leadership has quoted or paraphrased it in general conference as well many times..pointing to themselves ....it's false teaching, it reminds me of the line in th video.....tell everyone you know to "trust us"....that really made me feel uncomfortable.
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
I have addressed this multiple times in the past but just for the record again if you go to section 107 the Lord answers this for you.

79 And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.

80 And after this decision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest council of the church of God, and a final decision upon controversies in spiritual matters.

81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.

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

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

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

Now remember the laws of God are done in order according to truth and righteousness. That is why Priesthood Govt as set up by the Lord is so critical to the operations of the kingdom. If the President of the High Priesthood transgresses those laws in his stewardship role he will be dealt with righteously thru Priesthood Govt. councils just like the Lord has outlined in section 107. At that point the controversy is over. Now If you believe all of these Priesthood Govt. councils set up in TCOJCOLDS have become corrupted well then there really isnt anything else for us to talk about. Our divide would be just to great. You would be better suited to just go join another organization like Snuffers or Harmstons or ... ad naseum and take your chances. Cheers.
Ok...thats fair, I do believe in a government and body for governing in the church....but I also believe that the church is only as righteous (and its operation) as the people running it...just like the Book of Mormon, when the people become prideful, it infiltrates the "government" of the church....when people are wicked, they eventually overrun the church.....

So back to that quote...I believe the use of that quote, reflects the beliefs of the body of the membership, ....the way you use it now, sounds like a fair statement(you are referencing the governing body of the priesthood) , but the way I have heard it used in context, is that the leaders do not make mistakes....and when I have asked questions, or had concerns, that quote is used in the context of...."they can't lead us astray....this is the true church that can't fall...alll is well in Zion...follow the brethren...the church will roll forth "I would also like to add in context, this quote was given attached to the manifesto, when members were leaving in groves, and wilford woodruff was under a lot of pressure....and it's still not doctrinal....the Lord doesn't remove anyone from president of the church....we do. We as a righteous body, are supposed to remove wicked leaders out of OUR Midst. There are quorums and governing bodies in place for courts, and excommunication. In the early church, leaders who were not repentant, or who would not correct themselves, were called to repentance....

By the way, I'm not saying anybody is wicked and that they need to be removed from office. But there should be an obvious admission of guilt, or ownership taken for the handling of church history. But should someone be removed from office or position, I think not . But it is very likely they will lose trust and respect of the membership if they don't at least make a full admission....it's their choice. The. Gospel is about repentance...which require confession

Juliet
captain of 100
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:30 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Juliet » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:26 am

brlenox wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:45 am
Juliet wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:12 am
I wish the temple recommend question was do we sustain the church leaders as they act in harmony with the Holy Spirit. The way the question is worded now seems gestapo. Why do we teach to follow the prophet? This culture is not appropriate. We are to listen to the Holy Spirit and through it sustain the words said by those called as prophets as prophetic. D&C 50 tells us to use discernment because many false spirits are received by members and leaders that are not of God. So, does the prophet teach by the Spirit of truth, or by some other way? If it is some other way, it is not of God. We sustain them folks, we sustain them. Let's be responsible for who we sustain because it is our obligation to take upon us the name of Christ and do what Jesus would do, to stand up for truth and righteousness at all times, things and places. The prophets lead in a telestial world. When that changes, their keys will be given back to Jesus Christ.

This presupposes that you have the Holy Spirit and can discern that they lack the same.

Why would you think that you have greater access to that spirit than those called of the Lord would have?

How would you discern that your guidance is from the Holy Spirit and theirs is not?
It isn't supposed to be greater it is supposed to be equal, your witness and their witness are a double witness. If I go around feeling in my heart a certain truth and then I hear it in general conference, then I have 2 witnesses that feeling on my heart was from the correct spirit. I have actually had that happen. Actually I even had a blog which is down now where one of the psalms I pointed about that King David wrote about how obedience done out of fear leads to wisdom, and Elder Bednar gave the same scripture and made the same point that I had made in my blog in his talk about obeying first and then receiving the light and knowledge after.

I think we are all learning together and we have to trust ourselves because even if trusting our self turns out to be wrong, it is better to make a mistake and learn from it then never trust yourself and be gullible to anything anyone says and then you are not able to learn from your own experiences. That doesn't mean don't obey the prophet if you don't want to, because usually doing the right thing is the hardest thing to do. But if we give away our facilities of reason then how can we expect them to improve?

I guess what I am saying is we don't know for sure but we do our best and when we find we were not correct in discerning the Spirit of truth, then; we repent.

Juliet
captain of 100
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:30 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Juliet » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:29 am

Finrock wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:17 am
Juliet wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:12 am
I wish the temple recommend question was do we sustain the church leaders as they act in harmony with the Holy Spirit. The way the question is worded now seems gestapo. Why do we teach to follow the prophet? This culture is not appropriate. We are to listen to the Holy Spirit and through it sustain the words said by those called as prophets as prophetic. D&C 50 tells us to use discernment because many false spirits are received by members and leaders that are not of God. So, does the prophet teach by the Spirit of truth, or by some other way? If it is some other way, it is not of God. We sustain them folks, we sustain them. Let's be responsible for who we sustain because it is our obligation to take upon us the name of Christ and do what Jesus would do, to stand up for truth and righteousness at all times, things and places. The prophets lead in a telestial world. When that changes, their keys will be given back to Jesus Christ.
I used to think that because I was so evil, wicked, and worthless that I was all alone in life. I didn't feel and I didn't believe that Jesus Christ was with me, helping me, or sustaining me. Then one day all of this changed. When I was ready to believe and ready to accept Jesus, He came to me and washed away all of my sins and made me clean. After this event I was able to discern with my spiritual eyes and looking back on my life and I now knew that Jesus Christ was always with me. He had never abandoned me, and was constantly supporting me and blessing me, even when I was acting wickedly.

I learned from this that a person doesn't need to be acting in all righteousness or always be doing the right things in order for me to sustain them. Jesus was sustaining me all along no matter what I did, so it would be hypocritical of me to demand that others live up to my expectations before I sustain them.

God is merciful, kind, good hearted, meek, and submissive. He doesn't abandon us and He blesses both the wicked and the righteous. I believe I need to be the same in how I treat others, including the leaders of the Church.

-Finrock
Thank you for sharing this view, it really helps.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:08 am
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby inho » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:19 am

I think this blog post does a relatively good job in addressing both Elder Ballard's statements and FearlessFixxer's opinion piece:
Elder Ballard Talks Church History, and the MormonLeaks Team Responds

If you don't have time to read the whole thing, here are the conclusions:
Most of the suggestions by the MormonLeaks team have merit, but the way the article was written puts in question the intentions of the authors. Ryan McKnight has done several blogposts for the site Medium, some more sober and penitent, others oozing with sarcasm. This was closer to the latter than the former. This was venting (real frustration) and taking advantage of a recent gaffe to “stick it to the man.” Had he really been wanting the attention of orthodox members, it’s unlikely he would’ve gone to the Tribune. In his most recent Medium post, McKnight noted the Salt Lake Tribune is “affectionately known as Satan’s Printing Press and Korihor’s Soapbox by most internet tough guys and gals who could defend a sexual predator to the point of worshipping him as a prophet of god…”

Which is incredibly frustrating, because Elder Ballard’s statements deserved better. The editorial was a missed opportunity.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5215
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby buffalo_girl » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:39 am

It isn't supposed to be greater it is supposed to be equal, your witness and their witness are a double witness. If I go around feeling in my heart a certain truth and then I hear it in general conference, then I have 2 witnesses that feeling on my heart was from the correct spirit. I have actually had that happen. Actually I even had a blog which is down now where one of the psalms I pointed about that King David wrote about how obedience done out of fear leads to wisdom, and Elder Bednar gave the same scripture and made the same point that I had made in my blog in his talk about obeying first and then receiving the light and knowledge after.
I agree with 'double witness' confirmation.

However, I really don't know of anything in Christ's Gospel which has required that I "obey out of fear". I'm not sure I understand how 'fearful obedience' applies to Christ's Gospel. (I can certainly understand David's paranoia, but I'm not David.)

I prefer to TRUST The LORD's hope for me to become who He knows I can be, rather than to ignorantly 'obey out of fear'. What is so egregious we are asked - by The LORD to DO - requiring fear to make it happen? (Please don't use 'our prophet told us not to have multiple ear piercings' as an example. Sorry, I'm being cynical. That's the one most often heard in Relief Society when the 'obey the prophet' principle is discussed.)

I thought it was FAITH upon which our mortal lives are founded and motivated - which to my mind, equates to TRUST in God the Father, His Plan of Salvation as exemplified by His Son, Jesus Christ.

Indeed, there are eternal LAWS upon which this Plan is fulfilled; LAWS which - as children of God - we are blessed with the Intelligence to understand and the Will to apply as we seek our Savior's succor in our spiritual development.

TRUST

Juliet
captain of 100
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:30 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby Juliet » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:13 am

buffalo_girl wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:39 am
It isn't supposed to be greater it is supposed to be equal, your witness and their witness are a double witness. If I go around feeling in my heart a certain truth and then I hear it in general conference, then I have 2 witnesses that feeling on my heart was from the correct spirit. I have actually had that happen. Actually I even had a blog which is down now where one of the psalms I pointed about that King David wrote about how obedience done out of fear leads to wisdom, and Elder Bednar gave the same scripture and made the same point that I had made in my blog in his talk about obeying first and then receiving the light and knowledge after.
I agree with 'double witness' confirmation.

However, I really don't know of anything in Christ's Gospel which has required that I "obey out of fear". I'm not sure I understand how 'fearful obedience' applies to Christ's Gospel. (I can certainly understand David's paranoia, but I'm not David.)

I prefer to TRUST The LORD's hope for me to become who He knows I can be, rather than to ignorantly 'obey out of fear'. What is so egregious we are asked - by The LORD to DO - requiring fear to make it happen? (Please don't use 'our prophet told us not to have multiple ear piercings' as an example. Sorry, I'm being cynical. That's the one most often heard in Relief Society when the 'obey the prophet' principle is discussed.)

I thought it was FAITH upon which our mortal lives are founded and motivated - which to my mind, equates to TRUST in God the Father, His Plan of Salvation as exemplified by His Son, Jesus Christ.

Indeed, there are eternal LAWS upon which this Plan is fulfilled; LAWS which - as children of God - we are blessed with the Intelligence to understand and the Will to apply as we seek our Savior's succor in our spiritual development.

TRUST
That is because you are not wicked. Wicked people only know fear, so that's the only way they obey until they learn what truth and love feels like. But that is a side point.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5215
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?

Postby buffalo_girl » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:35 pm

I suspect truly 'wicked' people are incapable of godly fear.


Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cappaccio, CelestialAngel, cyclOps, dafty, gclayjr, paid2play, silk and 149 guests