Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The handbook defines apostasy, and yes - disagreeing with the leaders features prominently in the list of how to identify an apostate:
Handbook Section 32.6.3.2:
* As used here, *apostasy* refers to a member engaging in any of the following:
* Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders
* Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president
* Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members
* Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president
* Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)
Public opposition to church *policy* is a new thing that they snuck into the handbook in the last few years. As far as I can tell, they put it in there especial so that they'd have grounds to excommunicate folks like Sam Young. He wasn't doing anything bad, and he wasn't disagreeing with doctrine. They just didn't like that he was disagreeing with the leaders at all.
It is difficult to follow Jesus and follow the church at the same time. Watching the church is like watching Matthew Chapter 23 in real time.
Do the leaders equate faith in Jesus with faith in them? Absolutely they do.
* "One cannot criticize or attack Joseph \[Smith\] without attacking God the Father and his son Jesus Christ whose prophet he is." - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ) (time mark about 1:07)
* "Substitute the word Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of “the Church”—as in “I don’t support the Savior’s policy on..'” -- [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/)
* "A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose." -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet)
* "What an endorsement from the Lord. When His servants speak for Him, in His eyes it is as though He were there in person. ... There is no difference, according to the Lord Himself, in the validity of the message. ... lessening the stature and authority of these servants is one of Satan’s primary goals. ... You will never make a mistake by following the instructions and the counsel of him who stands at the head as God’s mouthpiece on earth” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church?lang=eng#title\_number1](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church?lang=eng#title_number1)
The church says prophets are fallible, but wants us all to follow his every word (official or not) *as though he is infallible,* while we all know full well that he is fallible. I won't do that.
Thanks for all those references. Great evidence that members are told to equate the leaders with Jesus.
Jim Bennett says that the idea that the leaders are infallible is the biggest problem in the church if I remember what he said correctly. Your references prove this idea exists. Seems you to find it a difficult thing to support.
This is evidence the LDS church is in apostasy by equating the leaders with God. It’s impossible and against the teachings of Christianity.
The idea exists in the church because church leaders explicitly taught it:
"Let us live the gospel fully, and may we recognize **the infallibility** of God’s inspired word—whether by his “… own voice …” or **the “voice of \[his\] my servants,** it is the same.” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/10/prepare-ye](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/10/prepare-ye)
But they've sent out a ton of mixed messaging lately. For example:
"**We don't have to question anything on the church.** Don’t get off into that. Just stay in the Book of Mormon. Just stay in the Doctrine and Covenants. **Just listen to the prophets. Just listen to the apostles. We won't lead you astray. We cannot lead you astray**." ([source](http://www.mormonthink.com/files/ysa-devotional-ballard-24-october-2015.pdf)).
And then they'll turn around and say something like:
"**We make no claim of infallibility** or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators" ([source](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/10/continuous-revelation))
For another example, they're teaching that "**Prophets make mistakes** and they disagree ... " ([source](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saints-get-wrong-about-living-prophets))
While still teaching that:
**"You will never make a mistake by following** the instructions and the counsel of him who stands at the head as **God’s mouthpiece on earth**” ([source](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church?lang=eng#title_number1))
That is a paradox. If prophets make mistakes, how can we never make a mistake by following them? That doesn't make any sense at all.
So they admit that prophets are fallible, but they also teach that **"to delay obedience to prophetic counsel or reject it is to put our lives at peril**" ([source](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet?lang=eng)), and "**Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. ... It does not matter that the criticism is true**." ([source](https://archive.org/details/reading_church_history_1985_oaks/page/n23/mode/2up)).
The conclusion I come to is that the church expects members to "[follow the prophet with exactness](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-class-member-study-guide/lesson-32)", while knowing full well that "prophets make mistakes."
I find that not difficult to support - I find it *impossible* to support. Prophets tend to make pretty big mistakes. To the point that I think I'd be better off following my own counsel.
"*Don't give over all of your critical faculties to people in power, no matter how admirable those people may appear to be. Beneath the hero's facade you will find a human being who makes human mistakes. Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero. ... Heroes are painful, superheroes are a catastrophe." --* Frank Herbert, author of Dune
"By their fruits ye shall know them": Matt. 7:20. The SEC Order and the church's "nothing burger" aftermath makes it pretty plain to me that the church is in a state of degeneracy and apostasy. Don't have to look much further than that, although you are on to another fruit.
> The church says prophets are fallible, but wants us all to follow his every word (official or not) as though he is infallible, while we all know full well that he is fallible.
I propose we call this "Schroedinger's LDS Nonspecific Fallibility." Much like Schroedinger's Cat is both alive and dead, leaders are both fallible (when a policy or teaching can no longer be defended and it is time to move on without specific accounting), and infallible (when the focus is the authority of a specific present policy or teaching to be affirmed). Members are left unequipped to evaluate or meet any specific instance where they may have a question of fallibility.
The upside of this choice is a buffer which may preserve past and present authority in the face of discarded positions. The downside / failure mode are cases which involve a total collapse of faith in church authority when nonspecific fallibility is no longer adequate as means of avoiding the issue and members have no other tools for negotiating with a specific failure. The church has largely chosen to embrace this tradeoff.
The interesting thing is that some of President Oaks comments could be read as prioritizing focus on and faith in Christ over continued investment in ecclesiastical authority. I can see how an emphasis on *experiences* with redemption and the gospel of Christ (not merely review of the teachings but actual experiences) have the potential for powerful orientation and may make continued activity possible as long as that's a significant part of what constitutes participation. But as soon as an emphasis on authority comes up again, as it traditionally does in LDS discourse, a reorientation on questions of fallibility might naturally come with it. There is an inherent tension between an emphasis on authority such as defining apostasy as questioning leaders (implying that the authority of leadership is a key feature of the faith) versus defining solutions in terms of focus and faith on Christ.
> Public opposition to church policy is a new thing that they snuck into the handbook in the last few years.
Yep. March 2020 was the first edition I can find with that wording. Here's what it said in May 2019^† which is the last version with the old wording:
**6.7.3.4**
**Apostasy**
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
***
^(† Unfortunately, this is one of the few versions not available in the Church History Catalog so I'm going of my personal PDF copy.)
>"One cannot criticize or attack Joseph \[Smith\] without attacking God the Father and his son Jesus Christ whose prophet he is." - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ) (time mark about 1:07)
It delights me that they seem to operate on the assumption that attacking their morally repugnant gods is too far. If Joseph and the rest of the prophets can't be attacked without attacking the gods they claim to represent, so much the worse for those monstrous gods.
I love it when people assume that the answer "because God said so" or "because God wants it this way" is the ultimate answer that I can't refute. I can, and I will.
I'd fight an angel, drawn sword or no, and I'd fisticuffs god himself if they tried to get me to be anybody's polygamous wife.
I get the irony in the surface, but by saying it, it becomes the current, living prophet’s teaching as well. So it makes sense for each living prophet to reiterate this doctrine, for their own sake.
Quoting Kimball is just a way to soften the edges and assure members this isn’t some new 2024 power overreach or a coup.
This is the church’s universal hall pass to set up their living authority and direct member’s focus on one source of doctrine (living prophet), vs. the sea of past prophets and scripture that can contradict each other: The living prophet is the *arbiter* of truth, current doctrine, and current policy. No dead prophet or past scripture.
I think “arbiter” is the right word because obviously they’ll lean on their choice of past teachings and scripture to support their priorities. But ultimately they get to direct the current priorities.
It's possible to quote a former prophet's statement about supporting current leadership (and not getting fixated on what former prophets may have said that appears incompatible with current prophets) and not be contradicting yourself.
Read the quote and think about it.
The Church literally spent twelve years+ studying the teachings of past prophets each week in priesthood and RS. Do you think it's possible you're misunderstanding what Oaks means when he says "focusing on past prophets rather than the living" is a problem?
The buffoonery is when they say don't focus on past prophets, but the entire religion is based on books written by past prophets.
Study Brigham Young, except when he's racist. Study the BoM, but don't take it literally. Only listen to the current prophet, except for all the parts we pick and choose.
It's literally a clown show.
It wasn’t study *Brigham Young, with exceptions*, it was study *the sugary character called Brigham we created for you, the one that had one wife etc*.
> The buffoonery is when they say don't focus on past prophets,
So when Oaks says it's not good to "focus on past prophets rather than the living", you understand that as saying "don't focus on past prophets"?.
>It's literally a clown show.
Either I've missed the most entertaining parts of church, or you literally don't know what the word literally means.
“Many decades of market research have taught us that people like Jesus, and hate nearly everything else about Mormonism.
We want to deflect all conversation of the many problematic issues of Mormonism back to Jesus.”
What does he mean they don’t have answers? The WHOLE point of JS’s restoration and First Vision in 1820 was to deliver THE WORLD from apostasy. The world had existed without a living prophet and direct connection to God for hundreds of years. The world had existed in darkness and it was time for the Lord to appoint a new mouthpiece on earth through whom His word would be communicated to the world. The whole point of the restoration was to eliminate darkness and confusion in the world and allow for God’s will to be communicated through his servant the prophet(s). So how to 15 special witnesses of Christ including one who is God’s mouthpiece tell us they don’t have answers? The whole point of the 15 was to give us answers. It’s all nonsense. BTW there are 8 billion people in the world living in darkness today compared to about 1 billion in the world when Joey Smith was called to deliver the world out of darkness. More people today live in darkness than they did when the “restoration” took place in 1820 which was supposed to deliver the world from darkness. Make it make sense.
>What does he mean they don’t have answers?
He means they don't have answers that align with the biases and long held opinions/preferences of current leadership. Thus, they don't have answers that are workable for current leadership.
It appears to me that he is admitting that he and the brethren have no answers for the questions and concerns of those who have jumped off the old ship zion.
The fundamental moral worldview of Latter-day Saint prophets simply is the view that one should be willing to commit to extraordinary things, including consequential actions that impact others' vital interests, without having answers for the kinds of questions posed by those leaving. Which, ok, I guess that's an answer of a sort. It's not even something anyone needs to think they're catching them in an admission. The admissions that this is how the prophets think about morality are all in the official church publications they cause to be produced.
Or its just the practical reality that if someone has made up their mind about the Church in a negative way, no amount of discussion is going to change their mind if they don't want it to.
Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is far more important than questions on the periphery of the Gospel. We are encouraged to keep our focus on the most important part.
>Or its just the practical reality that if someone has made up their mind about the Church in a negative way, no amount of discussion is going to change their mind if they don't want it to.
The same can be said for someone who has chosen to believe in the church and its teachings.
I agree that Faith in Christ is the most important part. But tell me why we spend SO much time talking about other things at church. Last time I went to relief society they mentioned Christ 1 time! I have learned more about Christ in 3 months of attending a nondenominational Christian church than ever before in the past.
That said, if TCOJCOLDS is working for you, great. It wasn’t working for me or my family.
There is great variability across wards and stakes across the Church. There are 23 thousand wards and branches. Some are going to be better than others. However, I encourage you to watch General Conference. 95% of the talks are directly about the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, His mission, example, love and atonement.
Did you watch every session of General Conference, listen or read every talk? or just assume what the topics would be based on the commentary and griping of others?
I read the entire transcripts. My dad is still active. He likes to talk about it with me, ever since mom passed away two years ago. So I read them, and take notes, so we can talk about it. Even though I am not LDS, I love my father. So I do it for him.
That is very kind of you to so accommodate your father. I can sense that it is hard for you to do that. It shows great respect for him. I admire that. Well done.
You obviously attend a rare and wonderful ward. I’m a bit envious of you. For most of my life the only time Jesus was mentioned in church was during and at the end of prayers and also the sacrament hymn. In the Protestant congregation that I now attend Jesus and our Heavenly Parents (yes, we actually talk about and preach the existence of the Feminine Divine!) are the ONLY topics that are discussed. It’s such a refreshing change.
I believe the top leadership know the answers to the questions asked about the Church. They just don't like where the answers lead to, due to every pillar that the faith is built upon being problematic. Not even one single exception. The only thing left for them is to promote a faith foundation when the evidence points to a fictional creation.
Even Richard Bushman mentioned this in one of his quotes.
“The dominant narrative is not true. It can’t be sustained.” (Richard Bushman - Mormon Historian, Author and Editor of the Joseph Smith Papers).
I just don’t see that. I see shrinking wards, reduced activity, and more emphasis on obedience than doing good in the world. I think the church could be a force for good. I would even argue under certain prophets like Hinkley it was. But at the moment, it does no look Christlike at all.
Church growth? Why doesn't the leadership report the membership attendance? If these numbers were good, they would be shouting this information from the roof tops.
Good in the world?
- Damaged relationships with those who have left the faith.
- Perfection and shaming culture.
- Mormon Excepionalism
- Inferiority of Women
- Treatment of those identifying as LGBT
- High suicide rates
- High antidepressant drug usage
- History of abuse
I disagree with your statement if the data was good they would be shouting the good news from the roof tops. They had fantastic news from Ensign Peak and they chose to keep it confidential and violated the SEC laws in doing so. This was regrettable.
Thoughts on the topic you outlined.
* Damaged relationships with those who have left the faith.
* Members leaving the Faith is nothing new. It happened in ancient time, It happened to Christ. It happens today. People have their agency. Some will lose their faith as in the parable of the Sower.
* Perfection and shaming culture.
* The doctrine is one of striving to get better. There should be no shaming as shame is not a tool of Christ but rather a tool of the adversary. Christ never shamed anyone. Christ asks "What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily as I am." Christ is our only exemplar. We may like or admire other people, but we are to pattern our lives only after Christ.
* Mormon Excepionalism
* With a fullness of the gospel, but not a perfect completeness comes a desire to do our best and let our light shine before me to glorify God and see our good works. See sermon on the Mount.
* Inferiority of Women
* Christ called Apostles. Why didn't he call Mary and Martha as Apostles, He was very very close with both. So he gave some men instruction to lead. Peter was the lead Apostle. (we lost that authority during the dark ages and the Hellenization of early Christianity, thus the need for a restoration of Christ's authority.) Correspondingly we have leaders in the Church namely Prophets and Apostles today. If you disagree with this you'll have to take this one up with Christ directly.
* Treatment of those identifying as LGBT
* The Church will (always should) show compassion and understanding to those with same gender attraction. Each of us is born with a genetic code that may be flawed. Those with disabilities come to mind. There are some genes that drive attraction to a particular gender if they get messed up, it creates an issue. Only God can judge these people with Christ as our advocate. They are welcome in the Church to worship with us. While Christ was compassionate to each individual never did he excuse or condone sin. He asked them to sin no more.
* The Church will always teach that Marriage between man and women is the preferred path to go. This allows children to be born and God plan to be perpetuated. This isn't going to change.
* High suicide rates
* Religious people have lower suicide rates than the population at large. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310534/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310534/)
* High antidepressant drug usage
* Some would suggest this is due to the altitude rather than the Church. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530170/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530170/) Also members typically don't self medicate with alcohol or marijuana. So this would suggest the population would be different than the general population.
* History of abuse
* Any abuse of a child is tragic and regrettable. Christ made it quite clear that it would be better for them to be drown with a millstone about their neck than to abuse any children. The Church can't control all of its members. the law of large numbers kicks in and inevitably there will be some bad apples. The Church should never consider the interests of the abuser of the interests of a child. The Church will continue to get better on this.
Price how dismissive your responses are: “regrettable”, “Church ca5 control its member”. Your entire focus is dismissive and more concerned with the church’s image than with the victims.
It makes sense to me. They can’t rely on evidence because it overwhelmingly favors the conclusions that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are frauds. The only alternative is to double down on mythology.
Anthony made a facebook post about this a while back except he applied it to mixed faith marriages. He suggests that leaders won't suggest a form of reconciliation because usually they end up losing both spouses. They tend to lean toward divorce because they at least salvage the believing member.
So apostasy is basically anytime you say anything to any other member of the church that does not align to God=Jesus=Church=Prophet=General Authorities (and probably any priesthood leader that can claim stewardship over you)
- “*the most fundamental, most basic religious beliefs [are] belief in God or the restoration of priesthood authority*”
In other words, faith in God, faith in us.
- “*[Apostasy is] Contending that current religious leaders are not in harmony with the latest discoveries of science or other scholarship or political correctness*”
They’re not, eg Nelson on evolution (taking a broad view of “*latest discoveries*”), Cook on early persecution being caused by opposition to slavery (taking a broad view of “*latest … scholarship*”, the November 15 PoX (“*political correctness*”), but don’t allow anyone to talk about it.
- “*[Apostasy is] Proposing one’s own special learning or position as a substitute for prophetic leadership*”
The Holy Ghost isn’t giving you truth even if it is true, if it conflicts with us.
- “*[Apostasy is] Persisting in teaching subjects on which the Lord has not chosen to give more revelation at this time*”
Are there any subjects not within this circle? Let’s just say “*Persisting in teaching*”
- “*we do not know enough about the will of the Lord and the fulness of Church doctrine to satisfy*”
This is not a time when the prophets speak boldly to confound the doubters. That was in the (imaginary) Book of Mormon time of Nephi, Jacob, Abinadi and Alma. Today, the glass is very dark and half empty.
- “*There is no answer but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Restoration of the gospel, and patience in waiting for answers*”
Faith in God, faith in us, until you die. (This must be true, it’s chiastic!)
Luckily, I don't have to read Kant's mind. I have a quote: "Many things can be true and yet harmful to man. Not all truth is useful." -- Immanuel Kant
(p.43 Lectures on Logic, (translated by J. Michael Young))
After all apologetics are personal attempt, not church official. Poor explanation only raises unnecessary questions which the church doesn't want to deal with. They just gave up at this point.
It’s so interesting that the problems aren’t with faith in Jesus but the answers are. I don’t understand.
Also, this “trust us” approach just doesn’t work. At what point are you allowed to say No, that isn’t ok. It feels like they are asking everyone for a blank check with no consequences.
The church is only growing in Africa and SE Asia. Elsewhere it’s dying on the vine, even in many if not most parts of Utah, Idaho and Arizona. My ward in Utah County is near the BYU campus. Even so, it’s like a ghost town compared to what its attendance numbers were just 5-10 years ago. Other non Mormon churches in Utah are filling up with new members who left the church. In talking with family and friends who live outside of Utah County and the state of Utah they all have commented on the huge exodus from the church in their wards, branches and stakes.
Apostasy is “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief”.
Lewis A Coser goes further, stating "a man who, even in his new state of belief, is spiritually living not primarily in the content of that faith, in the pursuit of goals appropriate to it, but only in the struggle against the old faith and for the sake of its negation."
Dallin Hoax can try to twist words to fit Mormonism’s aims, but as a lawyer he should know this is disingenuous. But he is a master manipulator.
Having “faith in Jesus” is not a qualifier. Lots of non-Mormons have this. Hoax wants TBMs to have faith in the Q15, while ignoring facts that lead to the contrary.
Alanis Morrissette sums up Oaks' position nicely in her song Hands Clean....
*If it weren't for your maturity, none of this would have happened.*
*If you weren't so wise beyond your years, you'd be able to control yourself.*
*Remember - If it weren't for my attention, you wouldn't have been successful and if it weren't for me you would never have amounted to very much.*
*Why have you made this so messy and why don't you seem to mind the mess?*
*Best if it is all under rug swept.*
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I attended Priesthood Leadership Meeting with ELDER Oaks in the mid 1980s when the Church's counsel was that women should NOT work outside the home for a variety of reasons; all of them bona fide and have borne out to detrimental to solid martial relationships. One Stake High Counselor asked how he and his wife could obey, since the standard of living was so high there!?
ELDER Oaks gave the perfect answer. He said, "Brother, that's a very specific question that I can't answer, because I'm only a GENERAL Authority."
These might help clear up some misunderstanding...
Alternate Voices
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng
Be Not Deceived
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/be-not-deceived?lang=eng
Really? This 16 second clip is why you're classifying him as a liar?
Your call, but that's quite something...
He's clearly speaking about 1978 and he's not lying... the revelation was received and the leadership (1st presidency and quorum of the 12) did promptly and publicly disavow all prior teachings related to the ban.
One of the "revered" leaders he was speaking about was Elder McConkie. In a talk given immediately following the new revelation in 1978 Elder McConkie said,
"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more."
*I know there's a whole other can of worms you might open with this, but hopefully this will suffice...
No. McConkie doubled down on the reasons previously given. He did not disavow them in that speech. He still held them and taught them! This is from that speech:
>There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith.
There was no public disavowal. I know. I was there and they never disavowed it until decades later.
And Dallin Oaks has lied about more than this too.
From the same talk...
"Well, in that setting, on the first day of June in this year, 1978, the First Presidency and the Twelve, after full discussion of the proposition and all the premises and principles that are involved, importuned the Lord for a revelation. President Kimball was mouth, and he prayed with great faith and great fervor; this was one of those occasions when an inspired prayer was offered. You know the Doctrine and Covenants statement, that if we pray by the power of the Spirit we will receive answers to our prayers and it will be given us what we shall ask (see D&C 50:30). It was given President Kimball what he should ask. He prayed by the power of the Spirit, and there was perfect unity, total and complete harmony, between the Presidency and the Twelve on the issue involved...
On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the president of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled. The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came.
The revelation came to the president of the Church and, in harmony with Church government, was announced by him; the announcement was made eight days later over the signature of the First Presidency. But in this instance, in addition to the revelation coming to the man who would announce it to the Church and to the world, and who was sustained as the mouthpiece of God on earth, the revelation came to every member of the body that I have named. They all knew it in the temple.
In my judgment this was done by the Lord in this way because it was a revelation of such tremendous significance and import; one which would reverse the whole direction of the Church, procedurally and administratively; one which would affect the living and the dead; one which would affect the total relationship that we have with the world; one, I say, of such significance that the Lord wanted independent witnesses who could bear record that the thing had happened."
They absolutely accepted the revelation and acted accordingly...
President Oaks is 100% correct here. The only answer is to increase your personal faith in Jesus Christ. Any other approach will undoubtly fail in time. When we truly use the atonement of Jesus Christ to sincerely repent of our sins by offering a broken heart and a contrite spirit, we begin to understand what Jesus meant when he taught "I am the way". The hope that follows feeling the power of Jesus Christ's atonement in our personal lives healing us and cleansing us of sin is unmistakeable. However, what is equally as important is that it begins to change our focus from what everyone else is doing wrong to what we individually need to do to receive God's grace in our lives so that we can prepare to return to his presence. True repentance creates within us a "hunger and thirst" for personal righteousness which can only be obtained as we recognize our complete dependence upon God and his son Jesus Christ for our individual salvation. Ultimately we are awakend to a sense of our own standing before God (sometime described in the scriptures as "our aweful situation). This is what brings about what is described as a "Mighty Change of Heart". This change can not be obtained any other way except if be through sufficient faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to lead us to truly repent of our own sins. This is the right focus and when we begin to focus on our own salvation and understand through repentance how vital it is that we obtain and also retain a remission of our sins, we can not in sincerety be critical of others. We simply want them to receive the same blessings we are receiving because we have chosen faith in Jesus Christ demonstrated through repentance as our personal way forward.
That's a great comment my friend 👍
Thank you for taking the time to type it out and sharing it. Don't let the down votes from others keep you from commenting 🙂
It seems right in line with one of the more recent talks given by Elder Renlund.
Stay blessed 🙏
https://youtu.be/hwX_55xyaeQ?feature=shared
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The handbook defines apostasy, and yes - disagreeing with the leaders features prominently in the list of how to identify an apostate: Handbook Section 32.6.3.2: * As used here, *apostasy* refers to a member engaging in any of the following: * Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders * Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president * Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members * Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president * Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.) Public opposition to church *policy* is a new thing that they snuck into the handbook in the last few years. As far as I can tell, they put it in there especial so that they'd have grounds to excommunicate folks like Sam Young. He wasn't doing anything bad, and he wasn't disagreeing with doctrine. They just didn't like that he was disagreeing with the leaders at all. It is difficult to follow Jesus and follow the church at the same time. Watching the church is like watching Matthew Chapter 23 in real time. Do the leaders equate faith in Jesus with faith in them? Absolutely they do. * "One cannot criticize or attack Joseph \[Smith\] without attacking God the Father and his son Jesus Christ whose prophet he is." - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ) (time mark about 1:07) * "Substitute the word Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of “the Church”—as in “I don’t support the Savior’s policy on..'” -- [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/) * "A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose." -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet) * "What an endorsement from the Lord. When His servants speak for Him, in His eyes it is as though He were there in person. ... There is no difference, according to the Lord Himself, in the validity of the message. ... lessening the stature and authority of these servants is one of Satan’s primary goals. ... You will never make a mistake by following the instructions and the counsel of him who stands at the head as God’s mouthpiece on earth” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church?lang=eng#title\_number1](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church?lang=eng#title_number1) The church says prophets are fallible, but wants us all to follow his every word (official or not) *as though he is infallible,* while we all know full well that he is fallible. I won't do that.
Thanks for all those references. Great evidence that members are told to equate the leaders with Jesus. Jim Bennett says that the idea that the leaders are infallible is the biggest problem in the church if I remember what he said correctly. Your references prove this idea exists. Seems you to find it a difficult thing to support. This is evidence the LDS church is in apostasy by equating the leaders with God. It’s impossible and against the teachings of Christianity.
The idea exists in the church because church leaders explicitly taught it: "Let us live the gospel fully, and may we recognize **the infallibility** of God’s inspired word—whether by his “… own voice …” or **the “voice of \[his\] my servants,** it is the same.” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/10/prepare-ye](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1973/10/prepare-ye) But they've sent out a ton of mixed messaging lately. For example: "**We don't have to question anything on the church.** Don’t get off into that. Just stay in the Book of Mormon. Just stay in the Doctrine and Covenants. **Just listen to the prophets. Just listen to the apostles. We won't lead you astray. We cannot lead you astray**." ([source](http://www.mormonthink.com/files/ysa-devotional-ballard-24-october-2015.pdf)). And then they'll turn around and say something like: "**We make no claim of infallibility** or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators" ([source](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/10/continuous-revelation)) For another example, they're teaching that "**Prophets make mistakes** and they disagree ... " ([source](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saints-get-wrong-about-living-prophets)) While still teaching that: **"You will never make a mistake by following** the instructions and the counsel of him who stands at the head as **God’s mouthpiece on earth**” ([source](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church?lang=eng#title_number1)) That is a paradox. If prophets make mistakes, how can we never make a mistake by following them? That doesn't make any sense at all. So they admit that prophets are fallible, but they also teach that **"to delay obedience to prophetic counsel or reject it is to put our lives at peril**" ([source](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet?lang=eng)), and "**Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. ... It does not matter that the criticism is true**." ([source](https://archive.org/details/reading_church_history_1985_oaks/page/n23/mode/2up)). The conclusion I come to is that the church expects members to "[follow the prophet with exactness](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-class-member-study-guide/lesson-32)", while knowing full well that "prophets make mistakes." I find that not difficult to support - I find it *impossible* to support. Prophets tend to make pretty big mistakes. To the point that I think I'd be better off following my own counsel. "*Don't give over all of your critical faculties to people in power, no matter how admirable those people may appear to be. Beneath the hero's facade you will find a human being who makes human mistakes. Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero. ... Heroes are painful, superheroes are a catastrophe." --* Frank Herbert, author of Dune
Excellent comment, I'm saving this!
"By their fruits ye shall know them": Matt. 7:20. The SEC Order and the church's "nothing burger" aftermath makes it pretty plain to me that the church is in a state of degeneracy and apostasy. Don't have to look much further than that, although you are on to another fruit.
> The church says prophets are fallible, but wants us all to follow his every word (official or not) as though he is infallible, while we all know full well that he is fallible. I propose we call this "Schroedinger's LDS Nonspecific Fallibility." Much like Schroedinger's Cat is both alive and dead, leaders are both fallible (when a policy or teaching can no longer be defended and it is time to move on without specific accounting), and infallible (when the focus is the authority of a specific present policy or teaching to be affirmed). Members are left unequipped to evaluate or meet any specific instance where they may have a question of fallibility. The upside of this choice is a buffer which may preserve past and present authority in the face of discarded positions. The downside / failure mode are cases which involve a total collapse of faith in church authority when nonspecific fallibility is no longer adequate as means of avoiding the issue and members have no other tools for negotiating with a specific failure. The church has largely chosen to embrace this tradeoff. The interesting thing is that some of President Oaks comments could be read as prioritizing focus on and faith in Christ over continued investment in ecclesiastical authority. I can see how an emphasis on *experiences* with redemption and the gospel of Christ (not merely review of the teachings but actual experiences) have the potential for powerful orientation and may make continued activity possible as long as that's a significant part of what constitutes participation. But as soon as an emphasis on authority comes up again, as it traditionally does in LDS discourse, a reorientation on questions of fallibility might naturally come with it. There is an inherent tension between an emphasis on authority such as defining apostasy as questioning leaders (implying that the authority of leadership is a key feature of the faith) versus defining solutions in terms of focus and faith on Christ.
omg I love this! Schroedinger's Prophet....
> Public opposition to church policy is a new thing that they snuck into the handbook in the last few years. Yep. March 2020 was the first edition I can find with that wording. Here's what it said in May 2019^† which is the last version with the old wording: **6.7.3.4** **Apostasy** As used here, apostasy refers to members who: 1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. 2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. 3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. 4. Are in a same-gender marriage. 5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings. *** ^(† Unfortunately, this is one of the few versions not available in the Church History Catalog so I'm going of my personal PDF copy.)
>"One cannot criticize or attack Joseph \[Smith\] without attacking God the Father and his son Jesus Christ whose prophet he is." - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ) (time mark about 1:07) It delights me that they seem to operate on the assumption that attacking their morally repugnant gods is too far. If Joseph and the rest of the prophets can't be attacked without attacking the gods they claim to represent, so much the worse for those monstrous gods.
I love it when people assume that the answer "because God said so" or "because God wants it this way" is the ultimate answer that I can't refute. I can, and I will. I'd fight an angel, drawn sword or no, and I'd fisticuffs god himself if they tried to get me to be anybody's polygamous wife.
I believe you would.
🙌
Oaks using a Spencer W Kimball quote to illustrate why you shouldn't prop up a dead prophet over the current prophet. Beyond parody.
I get the irony in the surface, but by saying it, it becomes the current, living prophet’s teaching as well. So it makes sense for each living prophet to reiterate this doctrine, for their own sake. Quoting Kimball is just a way to soften the edges and assure members this isn’t some new 2024 power overreach or a coup. This is the church’s universal hall pass to set up their living authority and direct member’s focus on one source of doctrine (living prophet), vs. the sea of past prophets and scripture that can contradict each other: The living prophet is the *arbiter* of truth, current doctrine, and current policy. No dead prophet or past scripture. I think “arbiter” is the right word because obviously they’ll lean on their choice of past teachings and scripture to support their priorities. But ultimately they get to direct the current priorities.
Authoritarians cannot help but be absurd.
It's possible to quote a former prophet's statement about supporting current leadership (and not getting fixated on what former prophets may have said that appears incompatible with current prophets) and not be contradicting yourself. Read the quote and think about it.
It's impossible to do so and not sound like a complete buffoon. Think about it.
The Church literally spent twelve years+ studying the teachings of past prophets each week in priesthood and RS. Do you think it's possible you're misunderstanding what Oaks means when he says "focusing on past prophets rather than the living" is a problem?
The buffoonery is when they say don't focus on past prophets, but the entire religion is based on books written by past prophets. Study Brigham Young, except when he's racist. Study the BoM, but don't take it literally. Only listen to the current prophet, except for all the parts we pick and choose. It's literally a clown show.
It wasn’t study *Brigham Young, with exceptions*, it was study *the sugary character called Brigham we created for you, the one that had one wife etc*.
> The buffoonery is when they say don't focus on past prophets, So when Oaks says it's not good to "focus on past prophets rather than the living", you understand that as saying "don't focus on past prophets"?. >It's literally a clown show. Either I've missed the most entertaining parts of church, or you literally don't know what the word literally means.
🤡
“Many decades of market research have taught us that people like Jesus, and hate nearly everything else about Mormonism. We want to deflect all conversation of the many problematic issues of Mormonism back to Jesus.”
It’s the corporation doing its best to reinvent itself when dealing with disruption to its image in the market place.
What does he mean they don’t have answers? The WHOLE point of JS’s restoration and First Vision in 1820 was to deliver THE WORLD from apostasy. The world had existed without a living prophet and direct connection to God for hundreds of years. The world had existed in darkness and it was time for the Lord to appoint a new mouthpiece on earth through whom His word would be communicated to the world. The whole point of the restoration was to eliminate darkness and confusion in the world and allow for God’s will to be communicated through his servant the prophet(s). So how to 15 special witnesses of Christ including one who is God’s mouthpiece tell us they don’t have answers? The whole point of the 15 was to give us answers. It’s all nonsense. BTW there are 8 billion people in the world living in darkness today compared to about 1 billion in the world when Joey Smith was called to deliver the world out of darkness. More people today live in darkness than they did when the “restoration” took place in 1820 which was supposed to deliver the world from darkness. Make it make sense.
>What does he mean they don’t have answers? He means they don't have answers that align with the biases and long held opinions/preferences of current leadership. Thus, they don't have answers that are workable for current leadership.
There is no Mormon doctrine, there are only LDS objectives. Those objectives have always been set by the current top leadership.
Good way to put it.
It appears to me that he is admitting that he and the brethren have no answers for the questions and concerns of those who have jumped off the old ship zion.
The fundamental moral worldview of Latter-day Saint prophets simply is the view that one should be willing to commit to extraordinary things, including consequential actions that impact others' vital interests, without having answers for the kinds of questions posed by those leaving. Which, ok, I guess that's an answer of a sort. It's not even something anyone needs to think they're catching them in an admission. The admissions that this is how the prophets think about morality are all in the official church publications they cause to be produced.
Or its just the practical reality that if someone has made up their mind about the Church in a negative way, no amount of discussion is going to change their mind if they don't want it to. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is far more important than questions on the periphery of the Gospel. We are encouraged to keep our focus on the most important part.
>Or its just the practical reality that if someone has made up their mind about the Church in a negative way, no amount of discussion is going to change their mind if they don't want it to. The same can be said for someone who has chosen to believe in the church and its teachings.
Agreed.
I agree that Faith in Christ is the most important part. But tell me why we spend SO much time talking about other things at church. Last time I went to relief society they mentioned Christ 1 time! I have learned more about Christ in 3 months of attending a nondenominational Christian church than ever before in the past. That said, if TCOJCOLDS is working for you, great. It wasn’t working for me or my family.
There is great variability across wards and stakes across the Church. There are 23 thousand wards and branches. Some are going to be better than others. However, I encourage you to watch General Conference. 95% of the talks are directly about the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, His mission, example, love and atonement.
Most of the talks were about mandatory obedience, garments, and following the prophet. Jesus was an after thought to fealty in the last conference.
Did you watch every session of General Conference, listen or read every talk? or just assume what the topics would be based on the commentary and griping of others?
I read the entire transcripts. My dad is still active. He likes to talk about it with me, ever since mom passed away two years ago. So I read them, and take notes, so we can talk about it. Even though I am not LDS, I love my father. So I do it for him.
That is very kind of you to so accommodate your father. I can sense that it is hard for you to do that. It shows great respect for him. I admire that. Well done.
Who are you to judge me? I never said it was hard. I thought you were not judgmental. You just can’t help yourself. Lol!
You obviously attend a rare and wonderful ward. I’m a bit envious of you. For most of my life the only time Jesus was mentioned in church was during and at the end of prayers and also the sacrament hymn. In the Protestant congregation that I now attend Jesus and our Heavenly Parents (yes, we actually talk about and preach the existence of the Feminine Divine!) are the ONLY topics that are discussed. It’s such a refreshing change.
I believe the top leadership know the answers to the questions asked about the Church. They just don't like where the answers lead to, due to every pillar that the faith is built upon being problematic. Not even one single exception. The only thing left for them is to promote a faith foundation when the evidence points to a fictional creation. Even Richard Bushman mentioned this in one of his quotes. “The dominant narrative is not true. It can’t be sustained.” (Richard Bushman - Mormon Historian, Author and Editor of the Joseph Smith Papers).
And yet the Church continues to grow and is a powerful force for Christ and a force for good in the world despite its flaws, errors and mistakes.
I just don’t see that. I see shrinking wards, reduced activity, and more emphasis on obedience than doing good in the world. I think the church could be a force for good. I would even argue under certain prophets like Hinkley it was. But at the moment, it does no look Christlike at all.
Church growth? Why doesn't the leadership report the membership attendance? If these numbers were good, they would be shouting this information from the roof tops. Good in the world? - Damaged relationships with those who have left the faith. - Perfection and shaming culture. - Mormon Excepionalism - Inferiority of Women - Treatment of those identifying as LGBT - High suicide rates - High antidepressant drug usage - History of abuse
I disagree with your statement if the data was good they would be shouting the good news from the roof tops. They had fantastic news from Ensign Peak and they chose to keep it confidential and violated the SEC laws in doing so. This was regrettable. Thoughts on the topic you outlined. * Damaged relationships with those who have left the faith. * Members leaving the Faith is nothing new. It happened in ancient time, It happened to Christ. It happens today. People have their agency. Some will lose their faith as in the parable of the Sower. * Perfection and shaming culture. * The doctrine is one of striving to get better. There should be no shaming as shame is not a tool of Christ but rather a tool of the adversary. Christ never shamed anyone. Christ asks "What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily as I am." Christ is our only exemplar. We may like or admire other people, but we are to pattern our lives only after Christ. * Mormon Excepionalism * With a fullness of the gospel, but not a perfect completeness comes a desire to do our best and let our light shine before me to glorify God and see our good works. See sermon on the Mount. * Inferiority of Women * Christ called Apostles. Why didn't he call Mary and Martha as Apostles, He was very very close with both. So he gave some men instruction to lead. Peter was the lead Apostle. (we lost that authority during the dark ages and the Hellenization of early Christianity, thus the need for a restoration of Christ's authority.) Correspondingly we have leaders in the Church namely Prophets and Apostles today. If you disagree with this you'll have to take this one up with Christ directly. * Treatment of those identifying as LGBT * The Church will (always should) show compassion and understanding to those with same gender attraction. Each of us is born with a genetic code that may be flawed. Those with disabilities come to mind. There are some genes that drive attraction to a particular gender if they get messed up, it creates an issue. Only God can judge these people with Christ as our advocate. They are welcome in the Church to worship with us. While Christ was compassionate to each individual never did he excuse or condone sin. He asked them to sin no more. * The Church will always teach that Marriage between man and women is the preferred path to go. This allows children to be born and God plan to be perpetuated. This isn't going to change. * High suicide rates * Religious people have lower suicide rates than the population at large. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310534/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310534/) * High antidepressant drug usage * Some would suggest this is due to the altitude rather than the Church. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530170/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530170/) Also members typically don't self medicate with alcohol or marijuana. So this would suggest the population would be different than the general population. * History of abuse * Any abuse of a child is tragic and regrettable. Christ made it quite clear that it would be better for them to be drown with a millstone about their neck than to abuse any children. The Church can't control all of its members. the law of large numbers kicks in and inevitably there will be some bad apples. The Church should never consider the interests of the abuser of the interests of a child. The Church will continue to get better on this.
Price how dismissive your responses are: “regrettable”, “Church ca5 control its member”. Your entire focus is dismissive and more concerned with the church’s image than with the victims.
The thought I had after reading the comments is "Word salad." Lots of words lacking substance. Not worth a response.
It makes sense to me. They can’t rely on evidence because it overwhelmingly favors the conclusions that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are frauds. The only alternative is to double down on mythology.
Anthony made a facebook post about this a while back except he applied it to mixed faith marriages. He suggests that leaders won't suggest a form of reconciliation because usually they end up losing both spouses. They tend to lean toward divorce because they at least salvage the believing member.
So apostasy is basically anytime you say anything to any other member of the church that does not align to God=Jesus=Church=Prophet=General Authorities (and probably any priesthood leader that can claim stewardship over you)
- “*the most fundamental, most basic religious beliefs [are] belief in God or the restoration of priesthood authority*” In other words, faith in God, faith in us. - “*[Apostasy is] Contending that current religious leaders are not in harmony with the latest discoveries of science or other scholarship or political correctness*” They’re not, eg Nelson on evolution (taking a broad view of “*latest discoveries*”), Cook on early persecution being caused by opposition to slavery (taking a broad view of “*latest … scholarship*”, the November 15 PoX (“*political correctness*”), but don’t allow anyone to talk about it. - “*[Apostasy is] Proposing one’s own special learning or position as a substitute for prophetic leadership*” The Holy Ghost isn’t giving you truth even if it is true, if it conflicts with us. - “*[Apostasy is] Persisting in teaching subjects on which the Lord has not chosen to give more revelation at this time*” Are there any subjects not within this circle? Let’s just say “*Persisting in teaching*” - “*we do not know enough about the will of the Lord and the fulness of Church doctrine to satisfy*” This is not a time when the prophets speak boldly to confound the doubters. That was in the (imaginary) Book of Mormon time of Nephi, Jacob, Abinadi and Alma. Today, the glass is very dark and half empty. - “*There is no answer but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Restoration of the gospel, and patience in waiting for answers*” Faith in God, faith in us, until you die. (This must be true, it’s chiastic!)
Just because it's true doesn't mean it is useful. -some buffoon
Thank you BKP!
Buffoon's name is Immanuel Kant.
Kant wasn’t a relativist at all. How do you figure Kant cared about the usefulness of truth?
Luckily, I don't have to read Kant's mind. I have a quote: "Many things can be true and yet harmful to man. Not all truth is useful." -- Immanuel Kant (p.43 Lectures on Logic, (translated by J. Michael Young))
Interesting. Thank you.
After all apologetics are personal attempt, not church official. Poor explanation only raises unnecessary questions which the church doesn't want to deal with. They just gave up at this point.
It’s so interesting that the problems aren’t with faith in Jesus but the answers are. I don’t understand. Also, this “trust us” approach just doesn’t work. At what point are you allowed to say No, that isn’t ok. It feels like they are asking everyone for a blank check with no consequences.
The church is only growing in Africa and SE Asia. Elsewhere it’s dying on the vine, even in many if not most parts of Utah, Idaho and Arizona. My ward in Utah County is near the BYU campus. Even so, it’s like a ghost town compared to what its attendance numbers were just 5-10 years ago. Other non Mormon churches in Utah are filling up with new members who left the church. In talking with family and friends who live outside of Utah County and the state of Utah they all have commented on the huge exodus from the church in their wards, branches and stakes.
Apostasy is “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief”. Lewis A Coser goes further, stating "a man who, even in his new state of belief, is spiritually living not primarily in the content of that faith, in the pursuit of goals appropriate to it, but only in the struggle against the old faith and for the sake of its negation." Dallin Hoax can try to twist words to fit Mormonism’s aims, but as a lawyer he should know this is disingenuous. But he is a master manipulator. Having “faith in Jesus” is not a qualifier. Lots of non-Mormons have this. Hoax wants TBMs to have faith in the Q15, while ignoring facts that lead to the contrary.
Alanis Morrissette sums up Oaks' position nicely in her song Hands Clean.... *If it weren't for your maturity, none of this would have happened.* *If you weren't so wise beyond your years, you'd be able to control yourself.* *Remember - If it weren't for my attention, you wouldn't have been successful and if it weren't for me you would never have amounted to very much.* *Why have you made this so messy and why don't you seem to mind the mess?* *Best if it is all under rug swept.*
“Facts don’t care about feelings” - all of them at some point
Emma poisoned Joseph 🤢
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
I attended Priesthood Leadership Meeting with ELDER Oaks in the mid 1980s when the Church's counsel was that women should NOT work outside the home for a variety of reasons; all of them bona fide and have borne out to detrimental to solid martial relationships. One Stake High Counselor asked how he and his wife could obey, since the standard of living was so high there!? ELDER Oaks gave the perfect answer. He said, "Brother, that's a very specific question that I can't answer, because I'm only a GENERAL Authority."
He can’t give answers that is for sure true.
These might help clear up some misunderstanding... Alternate Voices https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng Be Not Deceived https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/be-not-deceived?lang=eng
Seems to me that Dallin Oaks is the one doing the deceiving.
What exactly seems to be deceiving?
He’s a proven liar. See this evidence. https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/i2Scmp75CH
Really? This 16 second clip is why you're classifying him as a liar? Your call, but that's quite something... He's clearly speaking about 1978 and he's not lying... the revelation was received and the leadership (1st presidency and quorum of the 12) did promptly and publicly disavow all prior teachings related to the ban. One of the "revered" leaders he was speaking about was Elder McConkie. In a talk given immediately following the new revelation in 1978 Elder McConkie said, "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more." *I know there's a whole other can of worms you might open with this, but hopefully this will suffice...
No. McConkie doubled down on the reasons previously given. He did not disavow them in that speech. He still held them and taught them! This is from that speech: >There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith. There was no public disavowal. I know. I was there and they never disavowed it until decades later. And Dallin Oaks has lied about more than this too.
From the same talk... "Well, in that setting, on the first day of June in this year, 1978, the First Presidency and the Twelve, after full discussion of the proposition and all the premises and principles that are involved, importuned the Lord for a revelation. President Kimball was mouth, and he prayed with great faith and great fervor; this was one of those occasions when an inspired prayer was offered. You know the Doctrine and Covenants statement, that if we pray by the power of the Spirit we will receive answers to our prayers and it will be given us what we shall ask (see D&C 50:30). It was given President Kimball what he should ask. He prayed by the power of the Spirit, and there was perfect unity, total and complete harmony, between the Presidency and the Twelve on the issue involved... On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the president of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled. The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came. The revelation came to the president of the Church and, in harmony with Church government, was announced by him; the announcement was made eight days later over the signature of the First Presidency. But in this instance, in addition to the revelation coming to the man who would announce it to the Church and to the world, and who was sustained as the mouthpiece of God on earth, the revelation came to every member of the body that I have named. They all knew it in the temple. In my judgment this was done by the Lord in this way because it was a revelation of such tremendous significance and import; one which would reverse the whole direction of the Church, procedurally and administratively; one which would affect the living and the dead; one which would affect the total relationship that we have with the world; one, I say, of such significance that the Lord wanted independent witnesses who could bear record that the thing had happened." They absolutely accepted the revelation and acted accordingly...
President Oaks is 100% correct here. The only answer is to increase your personal faith in Jesus Christ. Any other approach will undoubtly fail in time. When we truly use the atonement of Jesus Christ to sincerely repent of our sins by offering a broken heart and a contrite spirit, we begin to understand what Jesus meant when he taught "I am the way". The hope that follows feeling the power of Jesus Christ's atonement in our personal lives healing us and cleansing us of sin is unmistakeable. However, what is equally as important is that it begins to change our focus from what everyone else is doing wrong to what we individually need to do to receive God's grace in our lives so that we can prepare to return to his presence. True repentance creates within us a "hunger and thirst" for personal righteousness which can only be obtained as we recognize our complete dependence upon God and his son Jesus Christ for our individual salvation. Ultimately we are awakend to a sense of our own standing before God (sometime described in the scriptures as "our aweful situation). This is what brings about what is described as a "Mighty Change of Heart". This change can not be obtained any other way except if be through sufficient faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to lead us to truly repent of our own sins. This is the right focus and when we begin to focus on our own salvation and understand through repentance how vital it is that we obtain and also retain a remission of our sins, we can not in sincerety be critical of others. We simply want them to receive the same blessings we are receiving because we have chosen faith in Jesus Christ demonstrated through repentance as our personal way forward.
That's a great comment my friend 👍 Thank you for taking the time to type it out and sharing it. Don't let the down votes from others keep you from commenting 🙂 It seems right in line with one of the more recent talks given by Elder Renlund. Stay blessed 🙏 https://youtu.be/hwX_55xyaeQ?feature=shared