The Google Apostasy Part 3 (The Leaders of the LDS Church No longer Allow Themselves to Be Accountable to The Membership of the Church)

I have been blogging for about three years now.

The general purpose of my blogs are to get people back into the scriptures and to take the scriptures seriously and literally and to BELIEVE THEM!

I encourage people to revisit what the scriptures actually say compared to what LDS lesson manuals and leaders claim that they teach.

The primary purpose of my first blog is to provide scriptural testimony that the Marvelous Work and a Wonder did not begin during the 14 year ministry of Joseph Smith but rather it is a future event, one that very possibly begins to come forth within the next few years. It is true that the New Testament church of Christ was restored to the earth along with many truths, however, the work of Joseph Smith and others had to do with laying the foundation of the Marvelous Work which would come forth at a future time.

Another false doctrine that has been taught is that the dispensation of the fulness of times was ushered in back during Joseph Smith’s public ministry.  Extensive documentation exists in the scriptures pertaining to what the dispensation of the fulness of times really entails and how it was not ushered in, in 1820’s as many erroneously teach.

The truth is that the saints were just beginning to attempt to usher it in when they transitioned from Far West to Nauvoo (as verified in section 128) but they failed.

It is clearly explained in section 124 and other passages of scripture and confirmed by LDS church history that the Lord rejected the Latter day Saints as a church along with their dead when they failed to repent, live the gospel law of consecration, restore the fulness of the priesthood which had been lost and complete the Nauvoo Temple.

The Second blog of mine (this one) deals with deep doctrine and brings to light many of the false and insidious doctrines that the modern corporate church teaches.

Needless to say, I don’t get many visitors to either of my two blogs and when I do, they usually flee once they see a little bit of the highly controversial content.

I fully understand why they do.

The LDS people have been indoctrinated to think that they belong to the only true church that has been restored but cannot fall into apostasy like the New Testament church did.

They have been indoctrinated to believe that it is a grievous sin to ever question authority or to doubt the general authorities.

They have been indoctrinated to think they should never exercise critical thinking while reading the scriptures and history of the church, or read material having an alternate view.

For these reasons, it must be a terrifying thing to happen on to sites like mine.

Ancient prophets referred to the time we live in as a period of “hidden darkness“, meaning that God’s people would think they live during religiously enlightened times even though we ourselves and the entire world are in all actuality in a state of spiritual darkness.

The scriptures have informed us that the reason that our minds have been darkened is because God placed blindness over Israel way back in ancient times and that the blindness would not be removed until the appointed time, when the dispensation of the fulness of times is ushered in.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Rom 11:25)

It has never been my intent or desire to provide this information to people who are happy and content to be in the latter day corporate church. I believe they are probably where they need to be at this time..

This is why I like the blog platform. It provides a format where people only find this information if they are actively searching for it.

My interest is in providing this information to those who feel strongly that the restored gospel is true but they are having a difficult time reconciling the original gospel that was restored by Joseph Smith with the one that is being lived and promoted by the current corporate Church.

Many of these people are concerned about the direction the modern church. Some are experiencing a crisis of faith because of some of the troubling and disconcerting information that has surfaced about LDS church doctrine and the history of the Church.

Recently I blogged about the Google  apostasy that Marlin Jensen spoke about at Utah State University.

Although that particular post ranked on the first page of Google pertaining to most of the key words associated with the topic, I only got a hand full of unique visitors at my blog. My usual 40 to 50 visitors grew conservatively to about 60 or 70, however, three of the visitors that made comments appeared to be paid influencers.

The irony of being visited by paid shills right after making a post that addressed the general topic of how the church was actively taking measures on the internet to counteract negative public opinion, was unbelievable to me. One would think that the church would not want to take the chance of shilling someone who already suspects the church of  trying to influence public opinion. That would produce a high probability of being caught wouldn’t it?

After doing a little research and finding what I consider to be compelling evidence that I was being shilled by paid influencers, I decided to expose what was being done on a following post about the Google apostasy.

That following post seemed to hit a nerve.

Within about a week I got 497 unique visitors to that last blog post resulting in nearly 1,400 views to various posts and articles I have previously written on this blog. (I don’t keep track of the stats on the other blog and therefore don’t know how many people have visited it recently)

Although 497 unique visitors is really not many visitors compared to what most popular blogs get, it still represents a huge increase from what I normally get.

Interestingly, nearly 15% of those unique visitors were driven to my post from something somebody posted on facebook. Since I don’t have or want a facebook account, I have no idea who it was or what they said. (But I am curious)

Nearly 20% of those unique visitors were driven to my post from an LDS chatboard called “LDS Freedom Forum“.

Someone on that forum actually posted the content of my blog into a post in the forum (although he surgically removed the links my post provided to the controversial doctrinal information about the false doctrines that the church teaches.)

In my opinion, this type of content would never have attracted any viewers ten years ago. The fact that it has generated as much interest as it has may be a sign that things are changing. One wonders if something like this could actually go viral in a big way at some point in time.

It has been interesting to read the comments that my post generated from members of that forum. It would appear to me as if the Church has been shilling that forum for some time to keep people from straying too far off the path and to keep them in spiritual oppression and bondage.

In my opinion however, any paid shills probably don’t do near the damage that ignorant members of the church do in their attempts to defend their faith and call their fellow brethren to repentance for being critical of the authorities.

Nevertheless, I noticed something quite encouraging as I read some of the comments. Even though most of the commenters were your typical apologists discounting the evidence and warning everyone not to be critical of the brethren, there were a few commenters that had seemed to understand the severity of our current situation and just how wrong it is for a religious organization to be involved in this type of activity.

Some of the more rigid and sanctimonious ones with blinders on ominously warned that this must mark the beginning of the separation of the wheat from the tares (with the wheat staying in the church and loyally but blindly following the brethren of course).

Curious to know what would happen if someone actually posted a scathing rebuke of how the brethren no longer allow themselves to be held accountable by the church membership, I had a very controversial article that addresses this topic posted within that particular thread.

I frankly did not even think the forum moderator would allow it to be published on that site but to my surprise, they did.

The short pontification actually generated one or two positive or neutral comments that were followed by a few private emails of encouragement.

This got me thinking, “could it be that God is finally beginning to take blindness off of Israel in preparation for the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times?

Anyway, I have decided to copy the pontification and paste it for your review below, followed by a short poll for you to state how you would respond if the church was shilling you.

Enjoy

Pontification Posted on the LDS Freedom Forum

This discussion has been an interesting one to follow. Both of them actually, since this tread has morphed into at least two topics or more… but, getting back to the original discussion, I believe many of the issues being brought up in this thread parallel some of the fundamental underlying issues pertaining to the war in heaven which is being continued here in hell or, a I mean earth.

 

(having to do with oppression, force, authoritarianism, intimidation, kissing the Pope’s a#* I mean ring vs. liberty, free speech and agency and taking the spirit as your guide, etc.).

 

It is really interesting to see people on one side of the debate always talking about finding safety in following the “brethren” and staying true to the “church” while the people on the other side of the debate speak of “following the Holy Ghost” and being true to the “gospel”.

 

I would like to ask the folks on this forum a two primary questions:

 

1. “Is it possible to file a complaint against someone to the appropriate church authorities and request that a disciplinary church court be held to evaluate their standing in the church without being ‘critical’ of their actions or statements?”

 

Please think this question over really carefully cuz it is a trick question.

 

I personally don’t think it is possible to bring someone into a church court without making a critical assessment of something they have done wrong.

 

Obviously we are to love the sinner but not embrace the sin that is committed. Nevertheless, we still hold those wonderful “courts of love” that result in destroying people’s reputations, families and livelihoods… and for good reason.. usually.

 

 I don’t think that being critical is categorically bad.

 

Sometimes it is bad, but sometimes it is necessary and justified.

 

 In fact, God requires the church membership to make judgments about people’s actions and to take action in order to protect the church from being overcome with sin.

 

If someone brings something to the attention of the appropriate church authorities that they think is a serious offense that warrants a bishop’s court or high council court, I would think that they are being critical, but they are only wrong in being critical if they are wrong about their accusation.

 

Here are some examples of sinful actions that might result in justified critical thoughts from members of the church:

 

A person gets drunk and smokes weed and gets high daily but enjoys having a temple recommend.

 

Does that warrant a critical judgment that could result in a complaint to church authorities?

 

A person commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife.

 

Does that warrant a critical judgment that could result in a complaint to church authorities?

 

Are any of those complaints worthy of disciplinary action by a church court and if so, don’t they require someone to observe them and make a critical judgment that results in a complaint to the church authorities?

 

I think they do..

 

And I think that there are times when the church needs to take action against those who are sinning.

 

In other words, if a lay member of the church or someone in authority thinks that someone in the church has made a serious enough mistake that a disciplinary church court should be held, they are making a critical observation.

 

Here is a text book example of how the Lord mandates criticism within the church:

 

“Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.”

 

That commandment from the Lord contained in section 42 commands the church to make a critical but accurate judgment about a person’s actions and if necessary, to “cast out” those who don’t repent of adultery.

 

Does it not take criticism to observe that someone is committing adultery and then to cast the unrepentant adulterer out of the church for adultery?

 

Of course it does.

 

Here is another mandate from the Lord to look at fellow church members critically:

 

“And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.” (3rd Nephi 18: 28-29)

 

How can any member of the church follow the above mandate from the Lord in preventing people from partaking of the sacrament unworthily if it is a sin to be critical of others?

 

Is it only the people who are in leadership positions who are allowed to make critical judgments?

 

Obviously, church courts are conducted by those who are in certain leadership positions and ultimately it is those people that have the awesome and unenviable responsibility of passing disciplinary judgment on their fellow saints, but I would venture to guess that in most cases, the sin is brought to the attention of the leadership by a concerned member of the church who is not going to ultimately be sitting in judgment in the church court.

 

Do lay members of the church have the right and responsibility to make these critical observations when they see them?

 

Of course they do. That is what the Lord has commanded us to do.

 

Remember, the following passage in the New Testament?-

 

” JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.”

 

It represents a corrupted passage of scripture.

 

It was corrected and  restored to it’s original statement in the JST

 

“Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.”

 

Question #2. (this one is also a trick question of sorts)

 

Why did the Lord provide specific instructions on how to hold a church court for the President of the Church?

 

Was he being facetious or disingenuous when he gave us that protocol or was he being serious?

 

If it is really a cardinal sin to ever be critical of the Prophet of the Church and if we are to turn and look the other way and leave it up to the Lord to correct the situation whenever the president of the Church does something that is potentially harmful to the church or his own personal spiritual well being, WHY DID THE LORD GIVE US INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH CAN BE DISCIPLINED OR EXCOMMUNICATED?

 

I would suggest that it is because the Lord, in his infinite foreknowledge and wisdom knew that Presidents of the church are human beings that are subject to making serious mistakes just like everyone else.

 

I would suggest that He knew that there would (or at least could) be future circumstances when a president of the church might do something wrong for which he would need to be corrected, if not cut off.

 

Interestingly, there are people in this forum who seem to believe that it would be a mortal sin to ever be critical of the president of the church and other general authorities.

 

[b][u]The very belief that nobody should ever be critical of the president of the church completely negates the Lords instructions on how to hold a church court on the president of the church.[/u][/b]

 

If church members have no right or responsibility to make righteous judgments about how the church is being governed then it appears as if the Lord made a very serious error in providing a protocol for holding a disciplinary counsil concerning the conduct of the president of the church.

 

It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith was actually brought before a disciplinary court as a result of a complaint by a fellow saint stemming from issues that took place during Zions Camp.

 

The brother who filed the charges was named Sylvester Smith, one of the captains who served in the Zion’s Camp expedition. The charges had to do with “criminal conduct” along with the fact that Sylvester felt that Joseph had used “insulting and abusive language” towards him.

 

One can only imagine what was going on in the minds of the council members who tried the case. Perhaps they were wondering what would ever happen to the church in the event that the Lord’s prophet seer and revelator was ever excommunicated from the church.

 

The court ultimately rendered a verdict in favor of Joseph.

 

To the credit of Sylvester Smith, who was reprimanded as a result of the church council that he caused to be held, he did not leave the church because of that incident.

 

To the credit of Joseph Smith who was deeply humiliated in front of the entire church by the court proceedings and some of the testimony that was given by other witnesses that sided with Sylvester, he did not seek retribution of any kind.

 

Within a year after Sylvester brought charges against the Prophet, he was called to serve on the Kirtland High Council and shortly after that, he was called and ordained as one of the inaugural presidents of the Seventies which would indicate to me that neither Joseph Smith or the Lord harbored ill will against him for bringing the critical charges against the prophet.

 

There are obviously some disagreements between members of this forum as to whether there are serious problems within the church.

 

One thing is for sure, if there ever are serious problems with the leaders of this church, the problem can never be corrected based on the absurd notion that members of the church never have the right to ever be critical of church leaders and that only the leadership of the church have the right to be critical of their own sins.

 

The truth is that church leaders need to have the positive burden and tension of knowing that they are being watched by loving members who understand sound doctrine and want to accept their responsibility of participating in keeping the church on the right path.

 

I believe the Lord originally put two very important measures for a checks and balances between the leadership and the lay membership of this church. I believe those two measures are as follows:

 

1- He made members of the church responsible for bringing anyone, including church authorities into a church court anytime they commit a grievous sin.

 

2- He put in place the law of common consent giving the membership the right to reject new doctrines, commandments or church callings that is presented before the church

 

I believe both of those checks and balances have been negated by false teachings and perceptions currently held in the church.

 

Members have been brainwashed to believe that they can never be justified in bringing criticism against a general authority and they have been brain washed into believing that refusing to sustain the brethren in any doctrine, commandment or new leadership calling is categorically wrong and sinful.

 

If the church was running the way the Lord meant for it to run, someone would request that the Church look into the allegations and associated evidence that has been publicly provided regarding the use of paid employees to sway public opinion and to lie about who they actually represent.

 

After all, two separate witnesses who probably don’t even know each other have obtained evidence and made allegations. One has actually provided compelling information which the church has made no attempt to refute or explain. (and you can be sure there are people in high places that know about the post that started this discussion.

 

in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established”

 

If the allegations turn out to me wrong, everyone including the general authority over the strengthening the church members committee will feel much better after having the truth be brought to light and the authorities vindicated.

 

If in fact the allegations are true, an investigation needs to be held to see just how far up the chain of command the responsibility goes and the necessary disciplinary action needs to take place even if it goes all the way up to an Apostle or President. By that holy process given to us by the Lord we can correct the problem and move forward.

[polldaddy poll=6256953]

Click here for Google Apostasy Part 1

Click here for Google Apostasy Part 2

Click here for Google Apostasy Part 4

Advertisements

6 Responses to The Google Apostasy Part 3 (The Leaders of the LDS Church No longer Allow Themselves to Be Accountable to The Membership of the Church)

  1. The Lord Himself has given specific instructions concerning church government and disciplinary actions in the D&C.. No one is unaccountable, not even God. The scriptures clearly state that if God were not just, then He would cease to be God. How and why? Because all the little intelligences which make up what is termed the light of Christ, which is the source of the power of God (see D&C 88:7-13), would no longer sustain Him and His power would dissolve! The church membership likewise is not forced to sustain any leader, and if that leader is not worthy of his position, neither the Lord or the church will sustain him! However, it is very unlikely that one or a few apostates who often are blinded by their own prejudices would be able to overthrow a leader whom they don’t approve of no matter how many articles they write!

  2. “Because all the little intelligences which make up what is termed the light of Christ, which is the source of the power of God (see D&C 88:7-13), would no longer sustain Him and His power would dissolve!”

    I don’t see how you arrived at the conclusion that the light of Christ is composed of little intelligences from the above referenced passages.

    I have heard that theory before, in fact I think Skousen gave a very interesting talk on it. I am open to the possibility of the general doctrine but if you want to prove it from the scriptures you will need something much better than those passages.

    The church membership likewise is not forced to sustain any leader

    That is obvious and understood. The point being made is that because of false teachings and perceptions within the church, many members do not dare to use their agency and the law of common consent to voice disapproval. This is because of social pressure and the fear that their membership will be put into jeopardy. Most members of the church have been dumbed down to think that they are expected to always sustain any and all leaders and that it is a sign of apostasy to vote otherwise.

    “if that leader is not worthy of his position, neither the Lord or the church will sustain him!”

    Where do you get that little nugget of wisdom? There is no where in the word of God that says the church membership cannot become deceived and sustain unworthy leaders. One of the great warnings given by Christ concerning the last days is to beware of false prophets.

    The church of Christ has become deceived and fallen into apostasy in previous times.

  3. S says:

    Why would you sue the Church? What they’re doing may be dishonest but is it illegal?

    I am a faithful church member that has been deceived my entire life, knowing all along there was something wrong, something missing from the teachings and from the people but not knowing exactly what. Thankfully my eyes have been opened and I am finally learning the truth. I’m looking forward to following your links. It sounds like you agree with the things I have already learned.

  4. Tammy says:

    onewhoiswatching, I am curious as to why you use the word agency without a qualifying word to describe what kind you are referring to.

  5. Why do I get the feeling that I am about to get a lesson on the different definitions of agency? LOL

    Tammy

    The word agency, when used in the scriptural sense, does not appear to need another word to qualify the meaning. The Lord generally uses the word agency without using a qualifying word. (See the following four passages D&C 29:36, 93:31 Moses 4:3l, 7:32)

    There is one place in scripture where the term moral is used, ie, “moral agency” but it means virtually the same thing as the word agency does by itself IMHO. (101:78)

    The primary definition of moral in the 1828 Websters refers to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, with reference to right and wrong, hence the meaning may be a little more narrow that the general term.

    There is, of course the term “free agency” which is used frequently in the church and is of questionable origin when used in a religious context but has very significant meaning if you are a professional athlete.

    If I am missing something here please enlighten me

  6. Tammy says:

    If I offer you a couple of choices and you choose one, you have agency to choose between what has been offered.

    If I offer you, as God has, the ability to choose anything you desire, then you have free agency.

    God has given us the gift of free choice, not limited to right or wrong. Therefore I am a free agent. I am not an agent unto God. I am not an agent to any thought, person, agenda, or principle.

    If we use the practical, common understanding of the word agency, we see that it is someone doing something under the direction of someone or something else.

    Just my thoughts. I hope you see this, as it has taken me a long time to respond.

    Thanks for your attention to my question, and for all the information you share.

%d bloggers like this: