Pres Monson's Sunday a.m. Gen Conf Talk

[David13]

Pres. Monson only talked for 3 minutes twice which I heard. But his messages were short and sweet and to the point, well received by me, and increased my respect for him, a man who has spent a wonderful like in the service of the Savior greatly.
dc

[jwharton]

I was there for 4 sessions. The only one I missed was the Saturday a.m. session.
What I heard was some female loudmouth shout out 'object' I think three times. That is not the 'same sign', the raised hand. It was just some stupid idiot who thinks the church is a democracy.
It isn't.
If you were paying attention, at some point in time, one talk commented about "that's fine in a democracy, but a church isn't run like that." That was the one moment I wasn't paying enough attention to remember who said it, or when.
The yap shouting 'object' could just as well raised her hand like everyone else had.
Also, by now, each and every one of us knows full well that the church is run by a chain of command. And it isn't garden variety member to the first Presidency. It's member to Bishop to Stake President and then higher up.
So the yap was just some grandstanding idiot. Who should have gone elsewhere on Saturday.
dc

It was just disruptive behavior, just like vandalism. Just trying to bother the people in the meeting.

I wish there was a button with a thumbs down instead of a thumbs up.
This post is an example of what gives me great concern for the people of this church.

[Thomas]

Obviously, to me anyway, general conference is the time and the place to voice dissent. That is why they ask for dissenting votes during conference. The shouting is to make sure ones vote is noticed in such a large crowd.

[Thomas]

I predict that as goes the church, the country will follow. It wont be long until we lose the right to dissent and vote for civil leaders as well. Since we cannot maintain proper principles in church governance, we do not deserve them in civil government.

We are pretty much just as ignorant and apathetic about civil government as church government so why should we expect anything different.

[Jason]

I have voted opposed to the general leaders for the past year, although not affiliated with Any Opposed. The idea behind shouting out "no" is that they wouldn't be seen otherwise, due to the sea of people. Personally, I wish they wouldn't shout out their opposition unless they weren't seen by President Uchtdorf during the time he asked for any to show opposition by the same sign--it does seem rude the way they currently do it. But, due to the monolithic nature of current Church membership, any opposition at this point is more symbolic than functional, something done to keep one's actions in harmony with the conscience.

And I doubt President Monson takes it personally (at least, I hope he doesn't). I don't know anyone who opposes who wouldn't if other men were leading. The vote of common consent is the only God-sanctioned method for the members to affect the leadership (and therefore direction) of the Church.

The only one who probably took it personal...was the Lord. Reason He comes back in red...

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1 ... lang=eng#7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ang=eng#15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/6.4?lang=eng#3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lizzy60]

What a streak of name-calling. Female loudmouth, stupid idiot, yap, grandstanding idiot. You have assimilated into Mormon culture very well, David13.

I was there for 4 sessions. The only one I missed was the Saturday a.m. session.
What I heard was some female loudmouth shout out 'object' I think three times. That is not the 'same sign', the raised hand. It was just some stupid idiot who thinks the church is a democracy.
It isn't.
If you were paying attention, at some point in time, one talk commented about "that's fine in a democracy, but a church isn't run like that." That was the one moment I wasn't paying enough attention to remember who said it, or when.
The yap shouting 'object' could just as well raised her hand like everyone else had.
Also, by now, each and every one of us knows full well that the church is run by a chain of command. And it isn't garden variety member to the first Presidency. It's member to Bishop to Stake President and then higher up.
So the yap was just some grandstanding idiot. Who should have gone elsewhere on Saturday.
dc

It was just disruptive behavior, just like vandalism. Just trying to bother the people in the meeting.

[Jesef]

It is true that in a sea of people in low light, a hand simply being raised would not even be noticed. People are constantly moving about, getting up to go to the bathroom, etc. Not to mention, the aged brethren's vision may not be that sharp either. Not even standing up and raising one's hand would be noticed. To raise one's voice in such a large crowd for a minority/dissenting vote is not disrespectful, so that they would be noticed/counted (I am not a dissenter, btw). And if the Remnant folks wanted to make a "demonstration" they could show up in force and raise quite a ruckus even if for that one moment. I think it shows respect for the system that they only raised their voice when the opposing vote was called (and not yelling whenever they disagreed with something in someone's talk, for example).

I just think our groupthink doesn't tolerate it anymore, so many are interpreting any opposing vote as disrespectful (because they don't feel the same way). But think about it: why have a common consent vote at all if dissenting/opposing votes are not going to be tolerated, but rather punished? We've become very homogeneous. If they want to avoid opposing votes, don't call for them. On what grounds is it okay to oppose? Is it okay to oppose if a member disagrees with how the Church is being administrated or how funds are spent (though how would someone know with closed books)?

We simply don't tolerate dissent anymore in our Church culture, and it is actually somewhat at odds with our founding doctrine and practices. The sustaining vote has morphed into an expectation instead of a choice or a voice. Do we have the right to object to decisions made by Church leaders or is that objecting to the Lord Himself? The only way to object is to write to them and all those letters get redirected to local leaders (SP's). The only other way to object is the opposing vote during sustaining. In the new scenario, or current culture, do the Leaders = the Lord? At the very least when a person opposes in GC, they are redirected to SP and if they cannot be convinced to sustain, which means agree, their Temple Recommend is typically stripped. I'm not arguing, this just seems to be the way things are now. Something seems wonky about sustaining votes if there's only one way to vote. I can see why fair-minded people might be upset about the way things work today and why non-members might think we seem "cult-like." Why go through the motion? Why not just save it for TR interviews where the questions are asked anyway on an individual basis and the consequence is entrance or denial to the temples?

[Jesef]

I loved both of President Monson's, and all of the Apostles', talks. President Monson's, in particular, always point to Christ and trying to be true followers, in deed, of Him. I interpret the "Beloved's" and other compliments from his brethren and others simply as adoring love. They love him and each other the way they love their spouses and children and families - with all their hearts - it may come across as adoration because it is adoring, it is whole-hearted. There is no reason to judge that it is not pure. Their praise and adoration and expressions of loving adoration for the Savior also seem deeply sincere and pure, to me. Through the lens of bitterness, however, all things seem evil and corrupt and like conspiracies - it is almost like the spirit of paranoia.

Btw, it was President Monson who reminded President Uchtdorf to get back up and re-acknowledge what sounded like a single dissenting/opposing vote and make sure they knew they had a forum to address their concern, starting with their SP. I'm not saying that's completely satisfactory, but the 15 Apostles hardly have the time to sit down with every disaffected member, some with very preposterous axes to grind. The "escalation" procedure of starting at the local level makes the most sense today. If respectfully approached, I think almost any concern could be discussed and escalated through a caring SP. Where people get it wrong, I think, is in the approach - they come at their SP guns blazing, seeming proud and self-conceited, and it just puts that local leader on the defensive and immediately thinking the person has the spirit of apostasy (treason), which is an unresolvable concern. I've heard some sad stories. Almost any organization and its dedicated officers will not tolerate the "sacred cows" being stabbed or angry accusation.

[freedomforall]

Obviously, to me anyway, general conference is the time and the place to voice dissent. That is why they ask for dissenting votes during conference. The shouting is to make sure ones vote is noticed in such a large crowd.

Matt 13:21
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

John 3:20
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

1 Nephi 1:17
17 And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost.

D&C 56:1
1 Hearken, O ye people who profess my name, saith the Lord your God; for behold, mine anger is kindled against the rebellious, and they shall know mine arm and mine indignation, in the day of visitation and of wrath upon the nations.

Alma 47:36
36 Now these dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information of the Nephites, yea, having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and more wild, wicked and ferocious than the Lamanites—drinking in with the traditions of the Lamanites; giving way to indolence, and all manner of lasciviousness; yea, entirely forgetting the Lord their God.

D&C 50:2-5
2 Behold, verily I say unto you, that there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world.
3 And also Satan hath sought to deceive you, that he might overthrow you.
4 Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name.
5 But blessed are they who are faithful and endure, whether in life or in death, for they shall inherit eternal life.

Get the picture?

[freedomforall]

What a streak of name-calling. Female loudmouth, stupid idiot, yap, grandstanding idiot. You have assimilated into Mormon culture very well, David13.

I was there for 4 sessions. The only one I missed was the Saturday a.m. session.
What I heard was some female loudmouth shout out 'object' I think three times. That is not the 'same sign', the raised hand. It was just some stupid idiot who thinks the church is a democracy.
It isn't.
If you were paying attention, at some point in time, one talk commented about "that's fine in a democracy, but a church isn't run like that." That was the one moment I wasn't paying enough attention to remember who said it, or when.
The yap shouting 'object' could just as well raised her hand like everyone else had.
Also, by now, each and every one of us knows full well that the church is run by a chain of command. And it isn't garden variety member to the first Presidency. It's member to Bishop to Stake President and then higher up.
So the yap was just some grandstanding idiot. Who should have gone elsewhere on Saturday.
dc

It was just disruptive behavior, just like vandalism. Just trying to bother the people in the meeting.

So would it be okay with you if 1 person turned into 50 people or a hundred all standing and shouting at the top of their lungs all the things they don't like about the church or its leaders?

Prov 6
16 ¶These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Standing in conference voicing dissenting statements is causing discord, hurting the spirit of the conference and causing reverence to go outside and disappear. And if saints are there to worship Jesus, this is one way of showing him that one is not there to worship at all, but to spew hardhearted statements...proving nothing but contempt for Christ and his church.
If one raises their hand in opposition to sustaining someone, the Lord knows them even before that. The ruckus is unnecessary, the discord unwarranted.

I know a person that couldn't get along with their bishop and was advised to attend a different ward until the release of said bishop...instead of the person quitting church because of the problem and turning bitter. However, what would it look like if that person had waited until Stake conference and stood up and ranted about it until there was total chaos?

[Matthew.B]

I have voted opposed to the general leaders for the past year, although not affiliated with Any Opposed. The idea behind shouting out "no" is that they wouldn't be seen otherwise, due to the sea of people. Personally, I wish they wouldn't shout out their opposition unless they weren't seen by President Uchtdorf during the time he asked for any to show opposition by the same sign--it does seem rude the way they currently do it. But, due to the monolithic nature of current Church membership, any opposition at this point is more symbolic than functional, something done to keep one's actions in harmony with the conscience.

And I doubt President Monson takes it personally (at least, I hope he doesn't). I don't know anyone who opposes who wouldn't if other men were leading. The vote of common consent is the only God-sanctioned method for the members to affect the leadership (and therefore direction) of the Church.

The only one who probably took it personal...was the Lord. Reason He comes back in red...

I've written and deleted 3 replies of varying lengths and makeup. I've decided on this one, as it seems the least contentious:

You're wrong about how you apply the principles and events of the Second Coming to my personal situation.


Peace, brother.

[Matthew.B]

Let's see they either had honest concerns about each individual that they voiced dissent on or they were voicing general disgruntlement. Which is the most likely option...

The third option is that those who oppose have specific issues that the Church continues to practice which the Brethren could fix if they felt so inclined, but do not.

If you've never read the reasons I listed for opposing, I would invite you to do so so you can get some perspective on possible reasons people could be led, by their conscience, to oppose on principle.

The Church needs to be set in order, and currently there is a method written into the original charter of the Church (the scriptures) that the members can justifiably participate in helping to do so (i.e., it doesn't amount to what we conceptualize as "steadying the ark"): through the sustaining or disapproving of the leaders, whose job it is to ensure that the scriptures and commandments of God are adhered to.

To be honest, though, I don't believe the Church structure or hierarchy will change or repent of the mistakes that have been made. The Lord promised that He Himself would cleanse the Church, starting with those who "have professed to know [the Lord's] name, and have not known me" (D&C 112:24-25). (As an interesting side note, Elder Oaks at the (in)famous Boise Rescue declared that the duty of the modern Apostles were to be witnesses to the "name" of Christ, not to be literal witnesses of actually having known Him personally) Whether that refers to members who pretend to know spiritual secrets and draw people away from Christ, or to a leadership that proclaims that they have the keys of authority without showing any evidence of such--or both--I cannot say, but it seems the safest course of action to be honest and true in all one's temporal dealings and doubly so with spiritual matters. Lying and prevarication leads one to hell.

[Jesef]

Matthew, I hope you've read enough of me to know that I'm not totally traditional. At one point I was riding the Denver Snuffer train and was becoming quite bitter toward the Church and its leaders due to all the "valid" criticisms I was imbibing. Now that I have taken off those fault-finding glasses, and stopped eating the bitter fruit (of bitterness), and really tried to put the Urim and Thummim of Charity and the pure love of Christ (which I think is harmless, helpful, pure, and tries to find the good in others and leaves judgment to the Lord) - I feel a little bit more objective now and I no longer feel objectively persuaded that many of the people accusing the LDS Apostles/Brethren of malfeasance, corruption, prevarication/lying/dishonesty, obfuscation, mismanagement, etc., etc., have enough real, solid, firsthand evidence to do so. In fact, I see quite the opposite, I see many accusations flying freely without sufficient evidence (no offense intended towards those who think I'm referring to them, honestly referring to no one in particular, and as far as I'm concerned you have your reasons - this is just from my perspective). I see confirmation bias where their words get twisted and taken out of context, almost in the exact same manner as anti-Mormons do.

Elder Oaks, to my knowledge, did not literally state anything more than we have in the scriptures here:

D&C 107
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world — thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, aequal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

He did not say he knew what his brethren's personal spiritual experiences and witnesses of Christ were composed of. President Packer said something similar that they do not ask each other how they KNOW. But there are many, many instances of bearing sure testimony, without explaining how. And there are also several great testimonies, such as Elder Haight's 1989 panoramic vision account in General Conference:

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

President Packer recently bore his testimony by quoting D&C 76 "For we saw Him..." and then said "Their words are my words." It's a little indirect but no more than Paul or Denver saying "I knew a man in Christ, [at such and such time or such and such years ago] who was caught up into the heavens" or the like. Elder Holland said he KNEW with what we call "the more sure word of prophecy" and President Eyring recently testified that he knew as surely as the disciples on the road to Emmaeus or as surely as if he had been with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the sacred grove during the First Vision. Also somewhat indirect, but prophets often testify like this. Btw, I pressed Denver Snuffer to explain how he saw Christ, and what "infallible proof" Christ provided him that it was indeed the resurrected Lord, he could not say. He offered to meet with me in person, but he would not elaborate on how he knew. So, on many sides of the fence (not that you are a follower of DS), we see a line that witnesses are not willing to cross - it is "too sacred" for public consumption.

I don't have all the answers. I used to be bothered by all the apparent contradictions and traditions and missing pieces, etc. And, trust me, I would still love to know everything. But I refuse to be bitter about that anymore. And I'm not going to fill in the blanks with bitter accusations that have no real proof and assume the very worst in people I don't even know personally. I'm going to assume the best in others, especially those I don't know personally, all the way up to the end of my mortal life - and all my naive and fantastic and idealistic notions can be disabused then. I am going to love everyone. After all, this life is not about survival - no one is getting out alive. So why not choose, Love, Joy, Peace, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, Gentleness, Temperance, Patience, Kindness, Virtue, and trying to be like Christ? It requires you to judge and cast stones at no one.

[SmallFarm]

Let's see they either had honest concerns about each individual that they voiced dissent on or they were voicing general disgruntlement. Which is the most likely option...

The third option is that those who oppose have specific issues that the Church continues to practice which the Brethren could fix if they felt so inclined, but do not.

If you've never read the reasons I listed for opposing, I would invite you to do so so you can get some perspective on possible reasons people could be led, by their conscience, to oppose on principle.

The Church needs to be set in order, and currently there is a method written into the original charter of the Church (the scriptures) that the members can justifiably participate in helping to do so (i.e., it doesn't amount to what we conceptualize as "steadying the ark"): through the sustaining or disapproving of the leaders, whose job it is to ensure that the scriptures and commandments of God are adhered to.

To be honest, though, I don't believe the Church structure or hierarchy will change or repent of the mistakes that have been made. The Lord promised that He Himself would cleanse the Church, starting with those who "have professed to know [the Lord's] name, and have not known me" (D&C 112:24-25). (As an interesting side note, Elder Oaks at the (in)famous Boise Rescue declared that the duty of the modern Apostles were to be witnesses to the "name" of Christ, not to be literal witnesses of actually having known Him personally) Whether that refers to members who pretend to know spiritual secrets and draw people away from Christ, or to a leadership that proclaims that they have the keys of authority without showing any evidence of such--or both--I cannot say, but it seems the safest course of action to be honest and true in all one's temporal dealings and doubly so with spiritual matters. Lying and prevarication leads one to hell.

God's house is a house of order. The sustaining vote is a chance to forgive those men of their shortcomings and then pledge to support them in their callings if you can, or say that you can't. It is not a place for your general disgruntlement. The main place for that is your prayers, as it is the Lord's church.

[jwharton]

God's house is a house of order. The sustaining vote is a chance to forgive those men of their shortcomings and then pledge to support them in their callings if you can, or say that you can't. It is not a place for your general disgruntlement. The main place for that is your prayers, as it is the Lord's church.

It is also a house of righteous dominion that doesn't turn a deaf ear to the cries for redress of grievances of those it governs.

Frankly, if you do not understand this, then you really have a huge missing in what it means to hold priesthood.

[e-eye2.0]

God's house is a house of order. The sustaining vote is a chance to forgive those men of their shortcomings and then pledge to support them in their callings if you can, or say that you can't. It is not a place for your general disgruntlement. The main place for that is your prayers, as it is the Lord's church.

It is also a house of righteous dominion that doesn't turn a deaf ear to the cries for redress of grievances of those it governs.

Frankly, if you do not understand this, then you really have a huge missing in what it means to hold priesthood.

Hmmm... The power of forgiveness or the power of murmuring. I think I will go with smallfarm on this one.

The problem I see with those who are not sustaining is the lack of increased love. I do see plenty of reproving with sharpness from them though...

[jwharton]

God's house is a house of order. The sustaining vote is a chance to forgive those men of their shortcomings and then pledge to support them in their callings if you can, or say that you can't. It is not a place for your general disgruntlement. The main place for that is your prayers, as it is the Lord's church.

It is also a house of righteous dominion that doesn't turn a deaf ear to the cries for redress of grievances of those it governs.

Frankly, if you do not understand this, then you really have a huge missing in what it means to hold priesthood.

Hmmm... The power of forgiveness or the power of murmuring. I think I will go with smallfarm on this one.

The problem I see with those who are not sustaining is the lack of increased love. I do see plenty of reproving with sharpness from them though...

What a way to twist things to justify turning a deaf ear to petitions for a redress of grievances.
This is the procedure the Lord has called for so why MURMUR when people avail themselves of it.

The only murmuring against the Lord I am hearing is from self-righteous arrogant members who mock those who oppose as they are given not just the right, but the responsibility, to do if their conscience requires it.

Your doctrine is one that will land our leadership in outer-darkness if they turn a deaf ear to petitions for redress of grievance.

[Matthew.B]

Matthew, I hope you've read enough of me to know that I'm not totally traditional. At one point I was riding the Denver Snuffer train and was becoming quite bitter toward the Church and its leaders due to all the "valid" criticisms I was imbibing. Now that I have taken off those fault-finding glasses, and stopped eating the bitter fruit (of bitterness), and really tried to put the Urim and Thummim of Charity and the pure love of Christ (which I think is harmless, helpful, pure, and tries to find the good in others and leaves judgment to the Lord) - I feel a little bit more objective now and I no longer feel objectively persuaded that many of the people accusing the LDS Apostles/Brethren of malfeasance, corruption, prevarication/lying/dishonesty, obfuscation, mismanagement, etc., etc., have enough real, solid, firsthand evidence to do so. In fact, I see quite the opposite, I see many accusations flying freely without sufficient evidence (no offense intended towards those who think I'm referring to them, honestly referring to no one in particular, and as far as I'm concerned you have your reasons - this is just from my perspective). I see confirmation bias where their words get twisted and taken out of context, almost in the exact same manner as anti-Mormons do.

I can appreciate your approach. While I commend you for it, I do not condone everything you've written here and will point out where I think the problems are (and leave a few untouched).

Personally, I've never been on board with the idea that the Brethren are purposefully doing evil. I don't have any evidence, circumstantial or not, that suggests that. I DO believe serious mistakes are being made, and that these mistakes may point to evil residing in the hearts of some of the Brethren, but trying to guess the contents of another's heart is a fruitless and bitter road to walk, and I don't think that's of God.

In this post, you seem to be accusing me of showing some bitterness or casting stones. I invite you to specifically point to where I do so or clarify that your intent was not to accuse me of that. If you do nothing else in response to this post, I would prefer you do this at least.

Re: Elder Oaks' comment: the connection to Oaks stating that the duty of the Apostles is to be witnesses to the "name" of Christ to D&C 112:24-25 is, in my opinion, significant. In light of the early history of the Church and testimony of early apostles who claimed to have seen the Lord, his claim falls flat (especially in light of Oliver Cowdery's original charge to the 12). One verse (D&C 107:23) does not a solid argument make when significant scriptural, historical, and rational evidence exist contrary to it. Simply because Elder Oaks is an Apostle doesn't make him right.

President Packer recently bore his testimony by quoting D&C 76 "For we saw Him..." and then said "Their words are my words." It's a little indirect but no more than Paul or Denver saying "I knew a man in Christ, [at such and such time or such and such years ago] who was caught up into the heavens" or the like. Elder Holland said he KNEW with what we call "the more sure word of prophecy" and President Eyring recently testified that he knew as surely as the disciples on the road to Emmaeus or as surely as if he had been with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the sacred grove during the First Vision. Also somewhat indirect, but prophets often testify like this.

Prophets also add something unique to the message to prove their experience was organic and real, and not borrowed or made to be more than it was. There's a sharp difference between Paul humbling himself by not directly saying "I saw the Lord, and this is what He told me" (or Denver using Paul's pattern) and then going on to explain what the Lord showed them or said and merely saying "hey, I know like these guys knew!" I accept Elder Haight's vision as authentic because he could (and did) describe the events surrounding it, the nature of what he saw, and an enlightened interpretation of it. I accept the 1978 revelation about blacks and the Priesthood for the same reasons.

Using the words of another and saying "yeah, this is me!" without adding anything that marks you as actually having an experience is problematic, especially when viewed in light of how much legalistic equivocation is used in the modern Mormon lexicon. Having one's calling and election made sure is often equivalent to having a more sure word of prophesy, and C&E made sure is sometimes directly associated with receiving the Second Anointing--which, if the example of Tom Philips shows anything, doesn't actually prove anything about a person's characteristic. It is precisely because this kind of equivocation of ideas and words exist within the history of Mormonism that plainness is so vital to the testimony of the Apostles--but instead of being plain, shrouds are continually drawn where they should not be.

Btw, I pressed Denver Snuffer to explain how he saw Christ, and what "infallible proof" Christ provided him that it was indeed the resurrected Lord, he could not say. He offered to meet with me in person, but he would not elaborate on how he knew. So, on many sides of the fence (not that you are a follower of DS), we see a line that witnesses are not willing to cross - it is "too sacred" for public consumption.

Did you ever take meet up with Denver? I'm curious.

[Matthew.B]

God's house is a house of order. The sustaining vote is a chance to forgive those men of their shortcomings and then pledge to support them in their callings if you can, or say that you can't. It is not a place for your general disgruntlement. The main place for that is your prayers, as it is the Lord's church.

I can agree to disagree, with the caveat that I believe my position is much more strongly rooted in scripture and history. You probably feel the same, and I'm cool with that.

Did you read the reasons I listed? Just curious--not looking to convince anyone else.

[2EstablishZion]

Of this I can testify.

As I have heeded the "anti-brethrenites" I have tended to be unhappy, lost the spirit of revelation and have distanced myself from the Lord.
I believe that some of the complaints are legitimate, maybe even most or all of them. But my suggestion is to leave it with the Lord to address, and do your best to support the brethren in their righteous pursuits.

All is not well in Zion, and I'm not advocating that anyone be a Pollyanna or bury their heads in the sand.
I also feel that resisting "correlation" is a positive thing if done in the proper spirit.

But I do feel that a lot that goes on in these forums is testimony destroying and that many who feel very justified in their positions will be accountable for the stumblings of some truth seekers who they will have distracted into forbidden paths of unnecessary trials.

Your experience may not be mine. Just sharing my perspective.

[Jesef]

In this post, you seem to be accusing me of showing some bitterness or casting stones. I invite you to specifically point to where I do so or clarify that your intent was not to accuse me of that. If you do nothing else in response to this post, I would prefer you do this at least.

Nope, I was not referring to you or accusing you. Sorry if it came across that way.

Expectations are tricky things, they often produce disappointments. I can't change your expectations about what a bona fide and literal witness of Christ should or should not be or what they should or should not say to qualify as such. Yours are as valid in your experience as mine are in mine. I have had and still have my own. But, what I can say, that is somewhat objective, is that I've also read the original charge to the Twelve (given by OC) and not even OC or JS pass that criteria test completely, as Oliver never publicly testified to seeing God face to face, and neither of them ever testified publicly to the Father or the Son laying a hand on them. Feel free to correct me if you have some wonderful quote or source I have not been exposed to. But if the public testimony of "seeing" the Lord is the benchmark, I think almost all of the original (post-1820 Restoration) Twelve fall short, as does the guy who gave the charge (so did he know what he was talking about even? If he did, it was only implied, not forthright. Although we do have his firsthand testimony of being touched/ordained by John the Baptist with Joseph, and seeing Moroni with plates, etc.) Almost every prophet could be accused of this type of obfuscation - not directly testifying they've seen or even better, touched. I've already mentioned Paul. "I knew a man..." when he really seems to have meant himself. Furthermore, to prove this case, one would have to disqualify all the scriptural "prophets" which cannot be proven to have given a "I saw Him" testimony in their writings. There's quite a few. And we could raise the bar, that "seeing" is not enough - after all, if you take D&C 129 into account, seeing the resurrected Lord would be insufficient to prove that it was actually Him, since He is resurrected, and can only be proven to be so via physical handshake/touch, as in John 20, 3 Nephi 11, etc. If He appeared to you and claimed to be the Son of God, according to the instructions, you should put forth your hand to verify Him, and He, being an actual resurrected person, with a body, could not deceive you, so He would put forth His hand to shake/take yours and you would feel it, etc.

I could go on and on, and have, on that Denver Snuffer train thread. My point is, we each have our own expectations, but they are not necessarily objective or fair or right. I'll stop there. I've failed to persuade anyone to my way of thinking. And I assume I'm wasting my time again. Believe as you wish. Don't mind my ramblings.

P.S. I agree with 2EstablishZion in that I found a very subtle but pervasive bitterness in the anti-Brethren movement. I felt and tasted it. Maybe that is the spirit of apostasy. I don't know. But I love them, I empathize with their dilemmas and feelings. I don't disagree with all their observations. I wish everyone the very best, truly. My opinions don't hold any weight and could very well be wrong.

P.S.S. I have not taken DS up on his offer yet. I hope to someday if I can get up there to UT. But I do think that exchange effectively and objectively showed the "line" that even he is unwilling to cross. He is unwilling to publicly provide the "infallible proof" he claims to have received that it was indeed the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ and not a false Christ or the devil pretending to be Christ (think, "angel of light", only worse, etc.). He could not prove to me, by his testimony, that he was not like Korihor. I'm not saying he is, and many would argue even the possibility by the sheer content of his message (testifying of Christ, etc.). But, nevertheless, he will not say or be more publicly descriptive about how he KNOWS what he claims to know or how he has seen what he says he has seen. And, to further confuse the issue, there have actually been what by all rights appears to be many demonstrably false prophets, such as Jim Harmston, who claimed the same sorts of theophanies, but led their flocks to utter disappointment and ruin. In other words, Jim also testified to seeing Christ and being ministered to by the Father and the Son, gathered people, built a temple, started to build "Zion", and many of the same claims and criticisms that the LDS Church & Brethren were fallen/rejected, and that the keys and authority had "moved" (to him), and all this led up to a prophecy of Christ appearing to them on March 25, 2000 in the upper room of their temple where they had a feast prepared, to inaugurate the Millennium (with TLC as the chosen seed, of course). Guess what? Didn't happen. Everyone disappointed, movement flew apart. Jim died, curiously, of a heart attack on Joseph Smith's death day, June 27, 2013. Weird. Anyway, there's a precedent for false prophets claiming to have seen Christ (and the Father) and all these other things, but being essentially false/untrue, i.e. they testified of Christ and seeing Christ, etc., but something wasn't right/true about it, their message, their prophecies, etc. Some have postulated that these offshoots, like TLC, were genuine but failed attempts. I think it much more likely (by the fruits) that they were simply deceived by false Christs, angels, etc., and fulfilling the Lord's warning in Matthew 24. But I could be wrong. Whatever.

[freedomforall]

God's house is a house of order. The sustaining vote is a chance to forgive those men of their shortcomings and then pledge to support them in their callings if you can, or say that you can't. It is not a place for your general disgruntlement. The main place for that is your prayers, as it is the Lord's church.

It is also a house of righteous dominion that doesn't turn a deaf ear to the cries for redress of grievances of those it governs.

Frankly, if you do not understand this, then you really have a huge missing in what it means to hold priesthood.

Hmmm... The power of forgiveness or the power of murmuring. I think I will go with smallfarm on this one.

The problem I see with those who are not sustaining is the lack of increased love. I do see plenty of reproving with sharpness from them though...

I go with smallfarm as well. Grievances can be written down and sent by mail to the First Presidency. Many saints have done so.

[jwharton]

God's house is a house of order. The sustaining vote is a chance to forgive those men of their shortcomings and then pledge to support them in their callings if you can, or say that you can't. It is not a place for your general disgruntlement. The main place for that is your prayers, as it is the Lord's church.

It is also a house of righteous dominion that doesn't turn a deaf ear to the cries for redress of grievances of those it governs.

Frankly, if you do not understand this, then you really have a huge missing in what it means to hold priesthood.

Hmmm... The power of forgiveness or the power of murmuring. I think I will go with smallfarm on this one.

The problem I see with those who are not sustaining is the lack of increased love. I do see plenty of reproving with sharpness from them though...

I go with smallfarm as well. Grievances can be written down and sent by mail to the First Presidency. Many saints have done so.

They are screened and for the most part rarely ever reach the general officers of the church.
They get forwarded back to local leaders who are likely unable to do anything but offer to go ahead and excommunicate them.

I can think of no greater expression of "I don't love you" than to turn a deaf ear to someone's sincere cries, cries that the Lord asks them to make.

How does sending these grievances to the church's spiritual executioners help them?

[iWriteStuff]

They are screened and for the most part rarely ever reach the general officers of the church.
They get forwarded back to local leaders who are likely unable to do anything but offer to go ahead and excommunicate them.

I can think of no greater expression of "I don't love you" than to turn a deaf ear to someone's sincere cries, cries that the Lord asks them to make.

How does sending these grievances to the church's spiritual executioners help them?

Are you sure your view isn't tainted just a smidge? "Spiritual executioners"? How many honest petitioners do you know personally who were publicly executed for asking questions only? I think the majority of those who meet the "Ex Axe" are usually combining questions with their own answers, then publishing them or seeking to gain a following, ie: leading others out of the church. Examples abound of that type.

But sincere seekers? What's the quantifiable mortality rate?

[freedomforall]

I do feel that a lot that goes on in these forums is testimony destroying and that many who feel very justified in their positions will be accountable for the stumblings of some truth seekers who they will have distracted into forbidden paths of unnecessary trials.

Amen

In the Book of Mormon we read:

Mormon 8:31
31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.


And your assertion of testimonies being destroyed, or at least weakened, by rantings is backed by scripture.

Mosiah 27:8 (8–9)
8 Now the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities.
9 And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power over them.

When we voice dissension we will be responsible for bringing down and causing someone to stumble, because of their testimony being hammered with negativity and unbelief. New members can read and hear these offending words and have their new spiritual growth torn asunder by people who just cant keep things to themselves. Each member is on the path going at different speeds, having various levels of light and knowledge. All they need is to have someone come along and entice them to take a different path.

Prov. 26:28
28 A lying (gossip) tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.

2 Nephi 28:28
28 And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

D&C 11:24
Build upon my rock, which is my gospel.

Let us remember, also, many people didn't like Christ either, thought he was a devil...and look what they did to him. Is the brethren, today, being mocked and scorned any different?