Does the Church control?

[Calm]

When you are happy in an organization like the church you can not understand why others are not.

This is only true if one insists on a one size fits all approach. Most members I know can understand why a particular individual is unhappy in the Church. Sometimes it is very easy to see why.

[erichard]

The current system works quite well. If there were a different way such as you suggest, I would assume that chaos would occur like it does in so many other churches. Paul cautioned the early saints to be of one heart and one mind. He cautioned this because of schisms inside the church proper. And paul also cautioned against following other leaders who were coming to the surface during his time.

However, if one sees a church leader doing something that he or she should not be doing: visiting a whorehouse, robbing, stealing, cheating on a spouse etc. it is perfectly okay to raise one's hand when it comes to not sustaining the person.

Hi why,

Possibly you are assuming when you say "as you suggest".

In all sincerity, I only am suggesting what is written in D&C 107:81-84, JST Mark 9:40-48, and that the common consent option of "all opposed" surely allows a member to choose that option in a legitimate way-- or why give that option?

Of course, it is my perception that the law the church lives by today is the church leaders, NOT the D&C.

That is because the church leaders claim continuing revelation, and essentially claim that all their teachings and decisions are always based on continuing revelation. They essentially claim they do not have to produce Word of the Lord oracles as an evidence of revelation.

This puts them above any possible legitimate controversy in their decisions and teachings.

But read D&C 107:81-84 again and notice that it clearly implies, as do many other D&C verses, that the D&C itself is the law the church is to live by, and that no one, not even the President of the church, is above that law.

It is definately a transgression of temporal matters if the President of the church claims revelation when he does not have revelation. D&C 46:27 shows that a bishop has discernment in any claim to a spiritual gift.

Thus, there has to be some way members can have a legitimate controversy over the President of the church over his implied claim of revelation in all decisions.

You simply cannot take the position that God guarantees that the church President will never fail the church in those matters, because these instructions do not give any limit on what is a legitimate controversy over him-- except that it must be a temporal matter not a spiritual one.

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

[a First Presidency court]

of the church.

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood

[a member of the First Presidency itself]

shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church

[a bishop's court]

, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And

their decision

upon his head shall be

an end of controversy

concerning him.

84 Thus,

none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God

, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

Richard

[TAO]

"The Lord predicts a latter-day SHIFT from Gentile to Israel in scriptures."

The latter-day shift is spoken of in 3 Nephi 16:7-13, 1 Nephi 14:42 and some other D&C verses.

"He predicts the Gentiles will pollute the holy church of God."

This is spoken of in Mormon 8:38

"He predicts a cleansing of his church."

This is spoken of in D&C 84:54-59

Alas, he does not say when this will happen. As of such, assuming would be improper as of time being. We should instead work on helping the sick and afflicted and building up God's kingdom; when he decides to switch, that will be his choice. And I wouldn't worry about it one bit; he shall switch as he sees fit and does justice on his terms. I am happy with his terms very much, even though I fail them greatly indeed.

Given that you have a firm testimony that the Lord is please with President Monson, I would think you would have no problem in allowing other members to claim the right to NOT sustain him, not reject evidences for their concerns, and to seek to settle their controversy over him based on the D&C instructions. What does President Monson have to fear from having controversies over him settled if he is right with the Lord?

Of course they have that right. But I do not worry about those who stir up contention. The Lord is very clear through President Monson. He shall not be lost.

Of course, that is only if members truly have such a right.

Of rights, and wrongs, so we fight, why are we so worried of who is right when all are doing wrongly? I think less needs to be focused on contention, more on service. If there is one gripe I have about this forum, it is that one, I believe. Not accusing you my friend - accusing all of us.

If someone begrudgedly agrees that the scriptures do allow members such a right, but then in every way seek to reject and demonize any attempt by a member to claim that right-- then what is going on? Why the fear?

I do not fear it actually. But I do get a bit annoyed =P. If anything, I need to be more patient, even when buttons are pressed.

If someone is certain that the controversy will not stand up before the Lord, why not allow controversies to be settled over church leaders?

Richard

Very little controversy will stand before the Lord. He hates us fighting... really... he does. He hates it so much. If we could fix that he would pour our blessings out more abundantly upon our heads. Not that it's not hard being non-controversial in this sorta world today. But it is needed. I just got corrected on it today. Heavenly Father is very nice about those sorta things, and so is Christ. Boy I've been a dolt recently =P.

I recommend him too you. We all need him greatly, and we aren't doing enough to get close to him =P.

[urroner]

When you are happy in an organization like the church you can not understand why others are not.

BY the same logic, when you are unhappy in an organization like the Church, then you can not understand why others are.

Same logic thread, when you are unhappy/happy with any organization, in or out of in, they you cannot understand why other can feel differently.

Sorry Monster, but, to me, that is silly logic. Are you saying that those who are happy/unhappy with the Church have totally lost all capability of empathy?

[why me]

Hi why,

Possibly you are assuming when you say "as you suggest".

In all sincerity, I only am suggesting what is written in D&C 107:81-84, JST Mark 9:40-48, and that the common consent option of "all opposed" surely allows a member to choose that option in a legitimate way-- or why give that option?

Richard

My point was really simple: if a member knows that a person may be unworthy of a calling, he or she can raise their hand against the person having that particular calling. It is the same in the general lds church with the GAs. There is no restriction at all. But the reason must be a good reason. So, if you see a GA coming out of a whorehouse in Salt Lake, it would perfectly be okay for you to raise your hand in not supporting the calling and in informing the proper authorities as to why. And that would be a ligitimate reason among others.

[erichard]

...So, if you see a GA coming out of a whorehouse in Salt Lake, it would perfectly be okay for you to raise your hand in not supporting the calling and in informing the proper authorities as to why. ...

Jan 15,1897 - Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. temporarily resigns as vice-president of Brigham Young Trust Company because first counselor George Q. Cannon allows its property to become "a first class" brothel on Commercial Street (now Regent Street), Salt Lake City. Apostle Heber J. Grant is invited to its opening reception and is stunned to discover himself inside "a regular whore-house." This situation begins in 1891, and for fifty years church controlled real estate companies lease houses of prostitution.

...

Mar 10,1941 - First Presidency orders Clayton Investment Company to get rid of its "whore-houses," no matter the financial loss, so that church affiliated company can merge with church-owned Zion's Securities Corp. Ends fifty years of church's leases to brothels.

source

What was you saying?

[erichard]

My point was really simple: if a member knows that a person may be unworthy of a calling, he or she can raise their hand against the person having that particular calling....

Hi again why,

In D&C 3, the Lord warned Joseph Smith:

3 Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.

5 Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them.

6 And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.

7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words--

8 Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble.

9 Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall.

10 But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work;

11 Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift.

Here the Lord warns Joseph against:

boasting in one's own strength

setting at naught the counsels of God

following after the dictates of one's own will and carnal desires

transgressing the commandments and the laws of God

going on in the persuasions of men

fearing man more than God

Now I think Joseph was a really good guy by the standards of the world, but the Lord clearly warned him against these errors in conduct.

If Joseph was not above these errors in conduct, then surely every church President since him has not been above these same errors.

And surely the adversary will always be right there trying any way he can to lead the church President down any or all of these errors in conduct. Right?

I have not mentioned so far any actual "controversy" in this thread, only a member's right to have a controversy.

But consider the events of 1978. The church leadership announced to the media that a revelation had come to end the "ban". (However they said it then.) They immediately began ordaining blacks, allowing blacks into the Temples, and allowing blacks and whites to marry in the Temples.

Then four months later, they asked in General Conference for a sustaining vote in this change.

If President Kimball, like Joseph Smith, is not above these "errors in conduct" do you not think it wrong that the church should allow him to make this change without having "common consent" voting BEFORE the change is made?

The idea that this change was because of the "persuasions of men" was immediately voiced by non-believers, and still is given as a reason for the change.

If this change came about in truth not because the Lord gave revelation, but because those continually pleading with the Lord to change it because of their fear of men and because of the persuasion of men finally had an experience that let them do what they wanted to do-- then the results of this is far far worse than if they went to a whorehouse.

Richard

[CV75]

Really?

If you were the adversary, and was able to infiltrate the top leadership of the Lord's church, would you not then raise up in multitudes the proud and foolish that contradict the leadership so that the leadership you had a grip on looked good?

In other words, because there are proud and foolish who rile against the leadership that does not logically prove that the leaders do not have some problem. Right?

Richard

To know the enemy is not to posses the same ambition as the enemy. One has to factually prove which leaders has the same problem.

[CV75]

I have not mentioned so far any actual "controversy" in this thread, only a member's right to have a controversy.

But you did provide a link that provided "controversies" and charges against the conduct of the leadership.

[CV75]

If this change came about in truth not because the Lord gave revelation, but because those continually pleading with the Lord to change it because of their fear of men and because of the persuasion of men finally had an experience that let them do what they wanted to do-- then the results of this is far far worse than if they went to a whorehouse.

The charge/controversy you refer to was made, but being offended by revelations, policies or views and then turning the accuser’s own fears and persuasions of men into such an accusation against the leadership was identified and and deemed invalid—due process was granted in hearing the complaint, determining its validity and not deciding not to proceed with a court.

[erichard]

The charge/controversy you refer to was made, but being offended by revelations, policies or views and then turning the accuser’s own fears and persuasions of men into such an accusation against the leadership was identified and and deemed invalid—due process was granted in hearing the complaint, determining its validity and not deciding not to proceed with a court.

Hi CV75,

I remain unconvinced, of course.

But I have to admit that I particularly like your succinct style.

Keep smiling,

Richard

[MorningStar]

Years ago I joined this group and after the audition, I realized they were all about control.

They wanted me to sing the same exact notes as the people in my section.

There was this guy we called our "director". He told us when to sing and how long. He wanted us to follow the sheet music exactly and He waved his arms about in this sort of freaky way.

We even had to wear the same thing. The men all wore tuxedos. The women wore wine colored dresses, obviously symbolic of something evil, not to mention a display of our inequality.

They made the short people stand in front during performances and the tall people stood in back. We were forced to stand in a line and walk in an orderly fashion.

He worked us for hours, but it was never good enough. "LOUDER! QUIET! NOT SO MUCH VIBRATO ON THIS SONG! DON'T BREATHE THERE!"

I mean, he told us when we could and couldn't BREATHE!

We had to pay money for uniforms and trips THAT HE TOLD US TO GO ON. We even had to work to raise money. Come to think of it, I think the group was dishonest about where all that money went.

If you couldn't carry a tune, there wasn't even any point in auditioning. You just weren't good enough. Talk about exclusive.

We heard all sorts of excuses like the director wanting us to sound the best we could, make us better singers, have better opportunities later, blah blah blah, but I knew it was about control. His hunger for power. Our section leaders were in on the conspiracy.

The more I think about it, the more disturbed I am that I followed that puppet master. He deceived me. I'm still trying to help others see the light, but they have fallen for his lies.

[Nathair/|\]

Years ago I joined this group and after the audition, I realized they were all about control.

They wanted me to sing the same exact notes as the people in my section.

There was this guy we called our "director". He told us when to sing and how long. He wanted us to follow the sheet music exactly and He waved his arms about in this sort of freaky way.

We even had to wear the same thing. The men all wore tuxedos. The women wore wine colored dresses, obviously symbolic of something evil, not to mention a display of our inequality.

They made the short people stand in front during performances and the tall people stood in back. We were forced to stand in a line and walk in an orderly fashion.

He worked us for hours, but it was never good enough. "LOUDER! QUIET! NOT SO MUCH VIBRATO ON THIS SONG! DON'T BREATHE THERE!"

I mean, he told us when we could and couldn't BREATHE!

We had to pay money for uniforms and trips THAT HE TOLD US TO GO ON. We even had to work to raise money. Come to think of it, I think the group was dishonest about where all that money went.

If you couldn't carry a tune, there wasn't even any point in auditioning. You just weren't good enough. Talk about exclusive.

We heard all sorts of excuses like the director wanting us to sound the best we could, make us better singers, have better opportunities later, blah blah blah, but I knew it was about control. His hunger for power. Our section leaders were in on the conspiracy.

The more I think about it, the more disturbed I am that I followed that puppet master. He deceived me. I'm still trying to help others see the light, but they have fallen for his lies.

That was awesome. I wish I had more than about three rep points per day.

[MorningStar]

That was awesome. I wish I had more than about three rep points per day.

Wait until you hear about my gymnastics class. Our "coach" told us to jump and we said "How high?" We literally bent over backwards for him. Control freak.

[Deborah]

Wait until you hear about my gymnastics class. Our "coach" told us to jump and we said "How high?" We literally bent over backwards for him. Control freak.

You have such a way with words!