Saturday, April 9, 2016

The Spirit of Truth

If truth is spoken, but a listener does not sense the Spirit testifying of it, what can that mean? Especially if the listener can acknowledge it was truth?

One of the titles the Spirit holds is Spirit of Truth (John 15:26; D&C 6:15). This is related to the role of testifying of truth (John 16:13Moroni 10:5).  The scriptures appear to show truth is inextricably related to Spirit (Ephesians 5:9; 1 John 5:6; Jacob 4:13; D&C 84:45; D&C 91:4).

Does the Spirit always testify of truth? Or does it pick and choose truths of which it will and will not testify, at which times, and to which people? If the Spirit does not testify to some truths, sometimes, to some people, on what basis does it decide when to testify and when to withhold? Why would it refuse to testify of truth? If it occasionally refuses, how would it qualify for the Divinely granted title "Spirit of Truth," rather than "Spirit of Appropriately Occasional Truth"?

If the Spirit is to testify of truth, can it fail in this duty? Could that be why a listener doesn't perceive the Spirit accompanying a truth? Joseph Smith defined the Spirit as "the mind of God." (Lectures on Faith 5:2).  Does God's mind fail?

If the Spirit of Truth consistently and reliably testifies of truth, did the speaker of truth perhaps fail to contact the Spirit and let it know when and where truth would be spoken, so the Spirit would show up to testify? Or did the speaker fail to infuse their true words with enough of the Spirit to be perceived? Can a speaker infuse their words with the Spirit? If so, how? Does a speaker get to determine which words the Spirit of Truth will testify of, and which it will not? Does the truthfulness of their words depart if they are not infused with Spirit? Even if they are the exact same words? 

If infusing the words with the Spirit is within the capacity of the speaker, can a speaker with this skill then infuse untrue words with the Spirit?

Does the Spirit of Truth consider the channel through which true words flow as part of determining whether or not to testify of a truth? Does the Spirit of Truth withhold testimony of truth to make a statement about the speaker of the truth? What happens when someone wicked precisely repeats a true message, given by God through a prophet? Will the Spirit refuse to testify of God's truth because it is being repeated by a less-desirable mouth? Is that truth not useful to any faithful who might hear it? Is the channel through which truth flows more relevant to the Spirit's testimony than the truth flowing through it? If so, why is it titled the Spirit of Truth, and not the Spirit of the Channel Through Which Truth Flows?

Or, are the truthfulness of words, and the relationship of the Spirit to truth, independent of the speaker?

If the truthfulness of words is not reliant upon the speaker, and their words are true, and the Spirit consistently testifies of truth, but it is not sensed by a listener, is it possible that this is a failure on the part of the listener? A failure to recognize or discern the Spirit of Truth properly? Is it possible that they have certain expectations for how the Spirit must manifest itself, which are perhaps incorrect? Does a certain feeling have to accompany truth for the Spirit to be bearing witness of its truthfulness? Fuzzy, peaceful happy feelings?  Or a physical burning sensation within the bosom? Are those the best indicators of truth?

How does a listener know when the speaker is speaking truth by the Spirit of Truth, and when they are speaking truth in absence of the Spirit of Truth? Can that even be done? Or is this skill of the listener imagined? An illusion by which they believe they can separate truth into Spirit-approved truth and Spirit-unapproved truth, when such a distinction doesn't actually exist? Are they perhaps instead simply perceiving their own confirmation bias, and calling it "The Spirit"?

What if you reject God-given truth because it isn't accompanied by the sense or feelings you'd like to think the Spirit manifests to testify of truth? With whom does fault lie for your rejection of that truth? The Spirit? For not meeting your imposed expectations?

Is it possible that the very recognition of a thing as true is, in and of itself, the Spirit testifying of the truth of that thing? Is it possible that this is a gift of the Spirit of Truth, and that is how it manifests? So simply? Regardless of other expectations?

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Common Consent or Conformity?

At this most recent general conference of the LDS Church, there was again a vocal opposition raised when the opposing vote was called for. The member of the First Presidency calling for the vote "noted" the opposition, nullified it through redirection, and moved on. As has happened in the past, this was apparently insufficient disrespect toward the opposed for some of the church membership, who in the wake of the event have spoken derisively of those opposed, and apparently even threatened violence should they cross paths with them.

It should be understood beyond debate that the Lord established in scripture the expectation that His church do things according to "common consent," especially when it comes to choosing leaders. If, for any reason, this is new to you, or you stand unconvinced (though I can't do anything if you simply don't think He's serious when He says these things), here is a selection of scriptures to that end:
"No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;" – D&C 20:65
"And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen." – D&C 26:2
"For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." – D&C 28:13
"And now, I give unto the church in these parts a commandment, that certain men among them shall be appointed, and they shall be appointed by the voice of the church;" – D&C 38:34
"And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference;" – D&C 124:144
"Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord." – Mosiah 29:25
"Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people… And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people." – Alma 2:3, 7
(See also Mosiah 7:9; Mosiah 22:1; Mosiah 29:2; Alma 27:21-22; D&C 104:21, 71-72, 85; and numerous others.)
I don't care if Elder Nelson declared in general conference the logical fallacy that our common consent vote shouldn't actually be understood as a real vote. The Lord apparently considers legitimate common consent to be a big deal, and therefore so should we.

Common consent can only work if certain prerequisites are already met. Participation in a functioning common consent environment requires virtues such as humility, tolerance, patience, and love for our fellow men. These are absolute necessities, especially for the value and purpose of opposing votes to be appreciated and meaningful, or the common consent nature of the community collapses into something else.

When a person in a common consent environment has love for their fellow men, and learns that their brother or sister opposes a proposition they themselves agree with, they want to know about it. You want to know what is troubling to them, because you don't want them to continue suffering under that burden of being troubled, if it can be helped. Therefore, you want them to make their concern clearly known, you want it raised loud and clear so it cannot be missed, so it can be addressed. An upraised voice in a conference of 10,000 becomes important and useful to you, rather than an annoyance that you want swept away, or belittled, or to suffer an ass-kicking. That is, if you have love for your fellow men.

Humility is essential, because when an opposing vote is registered, you might have to accept the possibility that this person knows something you don't, and their information may actually be of serious interest to you. You might have something valuable to learn from them, some truth which would in fact sway your own opinion in their direction, if you were humble enough to investigate the basis for their opposition with open ears and open eyes.

Tolerance and patience are crucial, because when someone is opposed to something you accept, they may be the most sincere person in the world, but struggle to come to the understanding which would resolve their opposition. They may have an entirely different world view and understanding, not to mention personal language barriers and other things that wrinkle understanding and communication. It may take time and discussion and study to help them resolve their concerns, and tolerance of your disagreements in the meantime. But then their concerns may become resolved, and you've gained a brother or sister.

These virtues are also crucial if you are the one registering an opposing vote. You may have good basis for your opposition, but others may not be interested in hearing you out, or treating your concerns as valid. This doesn't strip you of your right and responsibility to register your opposition, but you may have to tolerate prejudice and persecution for it. You may have to do it with patience, as it may take time for anyone to hear your concerns or take them seriously, if they ever do at all. Humility requires you understand your voice may remain the minority, and you may be subject to the decisions of the majority if you choose to remain in the community. Love for your fellow men requires that you seek whatever is in the best interest of even those you disagree with, which may mean your suffering persecution as the price of helping the few who will come to hear you.

When I see a supposedly common consent environment in which an opposing voice is raised, and the response from the remainder is persecutory, what becomes evident is that God's established "common consent" instructions are no longer in vogue and have been replaced with conformity, Satan's mockery of common consent.

In an environment of conformity, a dissenting voice is best when silenced, and compulsive means are acceptable. This can include verbal persecution, or emotional abuse through actively ignoring or marginalizing their voice, both of which are intended to generate fear of further speaking out. It can include legislatively ejecting the dissenting voice from the community to make them an outcast, safe to disregard and avoid. Or, ultimately, it can include forcibly silencing the dissenting voice by physical abuse or death. Unfortunately, many of these tactics seem to be more in line with what some members of the LDS Church are exemplifying and embracing in the wake of hearing such a voice, that when asked to make itself known, did so.

Personally, I'm glad someone raised a loud, opposing voice in general conference, whether or not I agree with their concerns. They apparently understand that their opposing vote is intended to be heard by design (D&C 124:144). The irony of the outrage against their obedience to scripture is palpable. Their voice isn't supposed to be ignorable, persecuted, or simply "noted."

On that "note," how can the First Presidency member claim that they've "noted" the opposing votes one second after the vote is called for? What exactly did he "note"? It is literally impossible to even peruse the entirety of that massive chamber in that time–not that he even tries, if you watch his eyes–and so he cannot possibly know how many opposing votes are present for him to "note." (Let alone those around the world not present in the conference center.) If opposers had only raised their hand in that dark, cavernous chamber, he certainly would not have known there was anything to "note" at all. As it stands, he can only have, at best, "noted" that some undefined number of people were opposed. This is a gross perversion of a common consent environment, because such an environment is necessarily built on every vote having relevance to the whole. To not even know how many opposing votes there are, let alone hear what their concerns are, is to completely set at naught common consent and embrace the tyranny of conformity.

I appreciate common consent. I don't much care for conformity.

Sunday, April 3, 2016

My Opposing Vote

In General Conference, the ceremony of calling for sustaining and opposing votes continues as an empty ritual.  It has no power.  The LDS Church calls for an opposing vote, but nullifies this very call by then requiring those who cast an opposing vote to reach out to their local leaders and cast their vote a second time, because the first is understood as being of no effect. It is "noted," but a vote of opposition is not handled in a common consent environment or church by merely "noting" it. Nevertheless, I have complied with this demand.  My opposing vote has been given to my leaders, along with a brief explanation and enumeration of my reasons.  My letter reads as follows:

"To the Leaders whom it may concern,

In accordance with the recent changes concerning the taking of the opposing votes, I am contacting you to vote my opposition to sustaining the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Quorums of the Seventy, and other general authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as presently constituted.  

It is strange and noteworthy that I am now required to contact you in this manner to make my vote known, seeing as the vote, by commandment of the Lord in D&C 124:144, is to be had during the general conference of the church.  Sure, an opposing vote was called for, but that vote was immediately nullified by the member of the First Presidency calling for it. Let me explain.

When no count was taken, and those who voted in opposition were not granted opportunity to bring forth their reasons which, in a common consent voting environment, should be examined and resolved before ratifying the proposal, the “vote” ceased to be worthy of that title.  (The leaders have even taken to officially denouncing the notion that the “vote” is actually a “vote,” as the Lord established it, and instead redefined it as an opportunity to show ceremonial deference.  “You and I do not “vote” on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them.” — Russell M. Nelson, Oct 2014 general conference. ) Instead, those proposed for sustaining were guaranteed and granted their seats through willfully blind denial and deflection of any substantive opposition, while those acting in obedience to the scriptures by making their opposition known in the general conference were required, by recent Church policy, to now reach out to their local leaders and voice their opposition in this way.  

Therefore, the vote of opposition in general conference, ordained by God Himself, has now, through the actions of the men sitting in the chief seats, literally become a form of a vote, denying all power thereof (JS-H 1:19), transforming it into another empty ceremony of dead works.

Continuing specifically on the act of voting my opposition, in obedience to scripture, I must also note that separating the votes out categorically (the individuals of the First Presidency, the individuals of the Quorum of the Twelve, their titles as prophets seers and revelators, etc.), required that I raise my hand to vote my opposition multiple times. Apparently, this technically means that I now qualify under point 1 of the definition of “Apostasy” in Church Handbook of Instructions Vol. 1 as an “apostate,” warranting not only required disciplinary action, but likely excommunication.  For to raise my hand more than once and vote in opposition in a publicly gathered meeting of the church, it is undeniable that I have “repeatedly act[ed] in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”  The hand raising was repeated, it was clear, it was open, it was deliberate, and it was public, while being in opposition to the Church or its leaders.  

So by directly obeying the scriptures contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, following the commandment of the Lord, in line with my conscience (Article of Faith 11), I have now evidently qualified myself for excommunication for the crime of obedience to the Lord, under the charge of “apostasy.” Perhaps this should call into question the source and value of the “inspiration” that has gone into the writing of the Handbook, not to mention its absolute supplanting of and directly contradicting the scriptures in an abundance of instances too great to comprehensively address in this mere letter.

On April 1, 1844, the Times and Seasons published this statement from Joseph Smith: 

“If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine & Covenants, set him down as an imposter... Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach, or teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches.”

Ironically, those Joseph warned against are now the ones doing the disfellowshipping and the cutting off, aimed at those who maintain the scriptures as a standard against which to evaluate their teachers and leaders, especially those claiming to be “prophets” and “apostles.”  Excommunications of this nature are occurring abundantly and rapidly. Joseph’s statements offer no provisions or privileges for those who preach and practice contrary to the scriptures under the assumption of it being their right, through claims of prophetic or priesthood authority.  He actually taught the opposite (D&C 121:41-42). Nephi warned against men claiming God had given them His power and asserting they, not He, were the ones to heed (2 Nephi 28:5). No true prophet will ever contradict God’s prior revelations, as God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8; Mormon 9:9), and He does not excuse Himself from things He spoke in our past (D&C 1:38).

“Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?…by his contradicting a former revelation.” — Joseph Smith

Moving along, in theory the next step after noting my vote of opposition would be to examine my concerns, to see if they are warranted or substantial, and see whether they can be resolved.  Going into the detail of all my concerns would require far more time than I believe any leader would be willing to put into examining or understanding them.  Any substance that can be provided for these concerns will, at some level of Church leadership, be ignored, marginalized, rationalized, denied, and avoided, because considering any of them as even potentially valid would infringe upon the current narrative the LDS Church seeks to construct about itself and its leaders.  Specifically, it would invalidate the “Follow the Prophet” creed which has become the central doctrine of the Church.  Therefore, the only way my concerns can be “resolved” to the Church’s approval would be for men supposing themselves to have authority to tell me to shut up and fall in line or get out of the Church.

Therefore, seeing as I know from the outset that my concerns will be written off by someone somewhere, I won’t be exhaustive in expressing them like I might be if I believed myself or my concerns would be taken seriously. I will only present a small portion of my concerns with basic supporting details, so you are somewhat informed of the basis for my opposing “vote.”  Suffice it to say, the points I list below all have substantial evidence and in some cases even demonstrable proof behind what I assert.  What I offer here does not reflect the fullness of my understanding on these issues:
  • The Church’s unjustly excommunicating those who obey the gospel outside the unscriptural control of the hierarchy.
    • Briefly, current Church policy requires that if a person who is a member of the Church is rebaptized as a renewal of their commitment to Christ, outside of centralized hierarchal control and approval, they are to be excommunicated.  Many such excommunications have already occurred in recent years, I could list many such people by name.  With all such excommunications, it doesn’t matter if: 
      • the baptism is performed by another member of the LDS Church holding priesthood authority and performing it in accordance with the instructions contained in LDS scripture (which also results in excommunication of the baptizer)
      • the scriptures offer no injunction or instruction that baptism be a singular life-event
      • the scriptures offer zero prohibition against re-baptism as a renewal of their baptismal covenants
      • the scriptures offer exactly zero claims or evidence that the ordinance of the sacrament is to be conflated with the ordinance of baptism, substituting as a renewal of baptismal covenants.
        • The scriptures reveal them to be two separate and distinct ordinances, with separate and distinct purposes.
      • the scriptures themselves offer examples of people being rebaptized with the express approval of Heaven itself, even outside Church regulation and without hierarchal priestly approval (e.g. Mosiah 18; 3 Nephi 11).
      • it was a common practice under Joseph Smith and several successors, Joseph himself performing re-baptisms, while serving an unchanging God with an unchanging gospel.
      • re-baptism was once even required for temple entry.
      • Heaven itself has declared approval of performed re-baptisms with scriptural signs and miracles, regardless of denials by leadership that such things could have occurred (Mormon 9:7-10).
        • Some have faced leadership claims that the scriptural signs which have accompanied some of these baptisms–signs expressly stated by God to be understood as signs from Him–must have instead been accomplished by the power of the devil.  Such accusations have arisen in the scriptural past, but never from those Christ acknowledges as His disciples (Matthew 12:22-24; John 10:19-21).
    • The same response of disciplinary action, including excommunication, applies for any other such infractions against church claims to regulatory authority over private practicing of the gospel. For example, a family performing the ordinance of the sacrament in their own home as a family, without the express approval of their leaders beforehand, likely faces excommunication.  Or if one practices the True Order of Prayer within the privacy of their own home, which was “allowed” and even taught prior to President Kimball, and even receives the revelations intended to be garnered through such prayer–proving that God Himself approves of it–the member will be cast out of the Church.  Such punishments have already been rendered.
    • The fact of the matter is, the scriptures offer exactly zero license to the notion that one man has any God-given authority to regulate the activities of another man, when that man is acting in perfect harmony with the scriptures and offending none of them.  Especially when such claims of regulatory authority are based in nothing except the virtue of the leaders’ “priesthood authority.” Such men only “suppose” they have God’s authority, and summarily surrender any true claims of authority when they attempt to wage such unrighteous dominion over their fellow saints (D&C 121:34-43).  To claim such is to reveal a profound lack of understanding concerning the priesthood, and to surrender it of themselves.
  • Corruption of the disciplinary process itself.
    • All discipline is to be handled “as the scriptures direct.” (D&C 20:80; D&C 42:83, 93.) Therefore if the Handbook stands in contradiction, it is to be discarded.  The practice is the opposite.
    • The offended are to approach the offender directly and personally first (D&C 42:88). This is no longer required.
    • The Church claims to require “lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior” prior to disciplinary action (Official Church Press Release, June 11, 2014).  This rarely occurs, some receiving no counsel beforehand, and only a notice of their own disciplinary council, sometimes literally only one day prior to the council.
    • No disciplinary punishment besides excommunication is scriptural.  Either you are a member of the congregation in fellowship with them, or you are not.
    • The congregation is not only to be aware of the accusations, but is to also hear the case and weigh in on the punishment by their vote, as a check and balance against corruption in the judicial power of those called to be judges (D&C 42:81). This is no longer practiced.
    • Any procedures, scriptural or from the Handbook, can be disregarded on a whim by the judge, as he gets to rule “on the procedures that are followed.” This is in complete opposition to D&C 20:80.
    • Members are not allowed to know the laws which they must adhere to or against which they will be tried, as Handbook 1 is kept from the view of the general church, and contains hidden rules and definitions used to determine offense and levy punishment.
    • Witnesses in behalf of the accused can be kept from testifying simply on the whims of the council (6.10.3).
    • Scripturally, all accusations, not just adultery, require two witnesses to condemn them (Mosiah 26:5-9; 1 Timothy 5:19).  The current policy only requiring this for adultery was brought about by the restructuring of D&C 42, moving the addendum concerning adultery into the middle of the Section, falsely creating the sense that only adultery requires two witnesses, and no witnesses are required for the remainder.
    • Witnesses against the accused must be plural and members of the congregation (Mosiah 26:5-9; Moroni 6:7), “just” (D&C 58:18), not members of the council (D&C 102:20 requiring their impartiality), and provide “testimony” (D&C 58:18, 107:72), meaning an actual firsthand knowledge. None of these requirements are adhered to.
    • Even the Handbook requires the accused have an opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses against them, but then it immediately nullifies this requirement by allowing witnesses to write and send in their testimony, without requirement of facing the accused.
    • The accused is entitled to one half of the council (D&C 102:15-17), to defend them against insult and injustice.  Instead, at best, one-half of those appointed to speak are given to the accused. Even more rare that they fulfill their duties, preferring to remain silent and baselessly assume that the accused they are supposed to protect from injustice and insult deserves all of the same.
    • The accused is removed from the room while the council deliberates further, preventing any correction, by the accused, of errors spoken therein.
    • The presiding officer makes a unilateral judgment, needing not even one vote of support from the council (6.10.4-7), offending D&C 102:19 and 22 which require a majority vote of agreement for the judgment to be effective.
    • According to current Handbook policy, one called as a judge can make the accusation (6.3), personally investigate the accused (6.4), rule on what evidence is “relevant” prior to the council even being convened (6.10.2), call a disciplinary council with themselves sitting as judge, nullifying the D&C 102:20 requirement of impartiality (6.10.2), determine what procedures will and will not be adhered to (6.10.4), prevent witnesses in behalf of the accused (6.10.3; 6.10.4-4), control which evidence is and is not examined (6.10.4-4), act as a witness against the accused (6.10.4-3), and render a unilateral verdict and judgment, even with the express disapproval of every other member of the council (6.10.4-7).  If this is not a picture perfect example of tyranny, throwing D&C 121:34-43 out the window, I don’t know what is.
  • The recent policy change concerning homosexuals and their children lays the salvation of children on the altar, sacrificing to the god of public image.
    • If a child is of the age of accountability, desiring baptism, with the express consent of their parents, but their primary residence is with a gay parent (which is a revision of the original “revelation”/policy change that merely required one or both parents be gay), then a saving ordinance is withheld from that admittedly accountable youth, at very least until they are 18 and have also moved out of their parents’ home.  In such instances, the Church itself is the singular stumbling block to that youth’s salvation and growth in the gospel, according to the Church’s own doctrines.  Such instances have in fact already surfaced, and sensibilities of those youth toward not only the church, but also the gospel, have been affected negatively.  Whatever grounds may be offered for the exclusionary treatment of the gay parents, visiting the punishment for sins of the parents upon their innocent children is anti-Christ (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20; Article of Faith 2).  It is an offense and affront to the God of Heaven, who does not take lightly the offending of His little ones (Luke 17:2).
    • This policy change is fruits of the recent removal of all Divine recognition of Priesthood authority among the general authorities by the Lord.  As such, they have now borne fruits which are demonstratively anti-Christ, as a sign of warning to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
  • Redefining tithing so that it may be extracted from the poor, who are in fact to be given aid from the tithes, rather than paying into them.
    • Tithing is a law with express limitations, which have been altered or summarily dismissed. The law of tithing, as given to our dispensation in D&C 119, is first a full donation of all surplus property, which is a part of this “standing law forever” (v. 4) that is no longer practiced at all, followed thereafter by 10% of annual interest.
    • The Church, in a 1970 First Presidency statement, defined “interest” as “income” setting course for the conversation to be nothing more than a debate about whether that means net or gross. Both are incorrect, because “income” has never in the history of accounting or economics been synonymous with “interest,” and our current notion of “net income” derived from taxes and deductions fails horribly to account for our actual expenses.
    • “Interest” is more synonymous in this instance with “surplus,” as becomes plainly evident by reading the scriptures concerning tithes.  It is the gain accumulated after all necessary expenditures to get through the year; the surplus left after the year has been navigated.  Tithing is to be exacted from our “excess” (JST Genesis 14:39), which is perfectly synonymous with both “surplus” and “interest” when speaking of economic value. The system is such that those with a large surplus pay a larger amount, those with hardly any surplus pay very little, those who accumulate no surplus by year’s end are not to pay tithes, but to receive aid from them as needed (JST Genesis 14:36-38).  This concept is repeated throughout scripture (e.g. Mosiah 18:27). 
    • The poor are free to make offerings, but to extract this redefined “tithing” of one-tenth of their income—especially when they are so poor as to have no surplus—is a breach of scripture.
    • Further indication of our blindness toward scripture—this blindness being resultant of our deference to those in the chief seats over the scriptures themselves—is the incessant quoting of Malachi 3:8-11 as grounds for warning the tithe payers that they’d better pay their tithing regularly and in full. It is the priests who collected and handled the tithes that are the ones being warned and condemned by the Lord through Malachi; not the tithe payers (this is established in Malachi 2).  The Lord rebukes the priests for robbery, holding them responsible for the lack of a full tithe, and promising blessings if they will shape up.  He was not rebuking the tithe payers. This is plain to those who read Malachi.
  • Mishandling of monies by the Church in efforts to please the world and make a profit, while denying or reducing the applicable uses for which they are scripturally intended.
    • The Church spends billions on for-profit ventures (D&C 101:46-49), while literally hundreds of actual LDS children around the world starve to death, and thousands suffer from malnutrition (see the Liahona Children’s Foundation at for more information).
    • Tithes are expressly to be used, among other things, to provide for the poor (JST Genesis 14:37-38), and do only the work of the Lord.  It is His money.  There is no license granted in scripture for using the tithes as an investment pool.  Yet this is done now by the Church.  And ALL investment capital used by the Church is derived wholly from tithing at the head of the money trail, despite any claims otherwise.
      • Whether the capital is generated by their current process of investing gathered tithes for an approximate three-year period, at which point the original tithing amounts are removed from investments and turned to building temples and meetinghouses and paying general authorities, etc., or whether the capital is gained by profiting through the operations of business ventures built through that invested tithing capital, the fact of the matter is that the Lord doesn’t allow for His money to be used to generate more money without that additional money also being claimed as His.  This is one of the principles plainly found in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30).  All profits, interest, etc., gained upon His initial monies are also claimed as His.  There is no investment capital utilized by the church which is not built upon a foundation of gathered tithes, thereby making it all tithing or at very least sacred funds, and tithing has no license in scripture to be used in for-profit business ventures.
    • The Church is saddled, by the Lord Himself, with the responsibility to provide for our widows, our orphans, and our poor, through His funds (D&C 83:6).  With the number of dying and malnourished LDS children, struggling and displaced single mothers and widows and orphans, and poor families losing what little substance they have to forces of governmental and business cruelty, it seems the field is ripe with those who are not only in need, but also hold legitimate and rightful claims to assistance from the funds collected by the Church in tithes and offerings.  Yet these people are largely denied further assistance after a short period, for failing to succeed at the Church’s unscriptural “self-reliance” doctrines (the scriptures do speak of industriousness and idleness, but self-reliance is Korihor the anti-Christ’s doctrine–Alma 30:17); or for failing to rely heavily enough upon government assistance (a complete reversal of the Church’s position that “we take care of our own” from 50 years ago); or other such excuses. Those controlling the funds are electing to reject the Lord’s instructions how the money is to be spent, and replace them with the corporate machinations designed to protect the bottom line.  The obligations placed on us by the Lord to provide for these needy stand not only unfulfilled, but largely rejected, to the point where the shepherds sometimes intentionally seek to avoid bringing people into their fold, on the grounds that they are poor and would be a burden to the congregation.  It is common practice for missionaries to be told to avoid poor parts of their area and focus on those with more material resources.
    • The fast offering program of the church not only isn’t scriptural, it is unfortunately structured so that the fast offerings remain local.  This has the effect of keeping affluent offerings in affluent wards and stakes as a pool for these affluent people to draw from for aid, which aid they largely don’t need.  Meanwhile, the poor wards and stakes around the world have almost no funds locally gathered, and therefore a minimal localized pool—if any—to draw from, in the places where the needs are greatest.  The bureaucratic navigation required for the affluent stakes to try and get their surplus offerings to the poor stakes around the world is such that it is generally considered not worth the effort.  Therefore affluent members instead send their boys to lavish scouting excursions and hold expensive regional activities with those local funds while poor members elsewhere literally die from lack of aid.  The program as structured is exposed as uninspired in design with even the briefest consideration.
    • The extent of the mishandling of Church funds at the higher levels is hidden, as the books are now kept tightly closed and in the dark (2 Nephi 27:27), out of the view of the membership, making it impossible for members to make an informed decision whether to sustain the leaders in their accounting practices with the Lord’s money.  This is a common consent church, according to our scriptures (e.g. D&C 26:2), and this understanding used to cause the leaders to lay the books open for the members to examine.  But that understanding appears to have been lost, and the new intention seems to be for the common “consent” to be an uninformed one.
  • Altering the doctrine of Christ, which He expressly states only cometh of evil.
    • Christ lays out His doctrine in 3 Nephi 11:31-40 in explicit detail, declaring directly that anything added to or taken away from such requirements are “of evil,” and those responsible for such alterations are not built upon His rock.  This is Christ speaking, not me.  Concerning the baptism portion of His doctrine, we have added a slew of interview questions, which one must answer, in the way the Church has established as a series of creeds, if they want to receive baptism at the hands of the Church.  If a person does not or cannot honestly answer all these questions in accordance with Church creeds, they will be denied this saving ordinance by an organization claiming to be the only authorized source of the ordinance in the world. This indeed adds to the doctrine of Christ, and therefore the conclusion as to the source of these added requirements is inescapable.
    • While we are to expect additional revelations and teachings to come forth from God (Article of Faith 9), these cannot include alterations to “the doctrine” of Christ, as made apparent by His declarations in 3 Nephi 11.  The prerequisites for baptism are to believe in Him and repent, period.  Repentance doesn’t include or require adoption or professing of creeds, or accepting the inspired advice of the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, which thing the Lord expressly forbade at the time of giving that advice, as though He anticipated men in the the Church would seek to elevate it to a commandment.  The doctrine is what Christ says it is in 3 Nephi 11. No more, no less.  The rest of His words are teachings, precepts, principles, etc.  He knew men would want to alter His doctrine, and He put those statements in scripture condemning such behavior precisely to stand as a witness against those who would create and support alterations, and inversely to sustain those who maintained faithfulness to His words, regardless of men claiming to alter His words in His name.  He is an unchanging God.
  • Requiring an oath of fealty to the brethren sitting in the chief seats, at the risk of losing one’s membership in the church, and supposedly all eternal blessings to boot.
    • Elder Nelson is largely responsible for this shift, defining a sustaining vote as an “oath-like” gesture to indicate our absolute fidelity in Following the Prophet (the central doctrine upon which all other LDS church doctrines hang, as opposed to Christ’s two great linchpins upon which He hangs all His laws, Matthew 22:36-40), making (explicitly) all the leaders’ words “binding” upon me. (Not to mention this “privilege” isn’t actually a "vote," but just a wonderful opportunity to show them that my enslavement to their every whim is done voluntarily.) This is what is now required, rather than following Christ (e.g. Luke 18:22), making only His words binding upon me, which may be delivered through servants He chooses.  Where I might be willing to vote to sustain a leader, meaning to uphold them and support them in their efforts to obey God and serve Him and their fellow men, I will swear my fealty to no man, which is in accordance with what the Lord directs (3 Nephi 12:33-37).  For such a “crime,” evidence suggests I would be excommunicated, as has been the case many times in the past few years.
  • Requiring members to acknowledge the Twelve as being legitimate Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, when they bear no fruits as evidence of being Apostles.
    • They have not shown themselves to qualify for that title, some even by their own admission. To be an Apostle of the Lord and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, both scripture and Joseph Smith make clear the necessity that one be capable of declaring themselves as witnesses of the risen Lord, meaning He has come to them in person and ministered unto them in His resurrected state; and that they are witnesses of His atonement.  It has been 100 or more years since an Apostle claimed to receive the Lord, and David B. Haight was the last to openly claim receiving a vision of the Atonement.  False apostles are in fact scripturally anticipated within this church, not only outside it, and are promised by the Lord to be exposed in their time (D&C 64:38-40).
    • The Apostles of Joseph Smith’s dispensation were always given a charge upon their initial ordination, explaining that their ordination was incomplete until the Lord Himself laid His hands upon them.  (“Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands on His disciples, why not in latter days?” — Oliver Cowdery, History of the Church, 2:194-198.)  This charge was eliminated in or around 1911, with no other explanation than too many of those called to the apostleship were not receiving this experience.
    • President Joseph F Smith, in a General Conference talk given April 6th, 1916, correctly affirmed: "For instance, the 12 disciples of Christ are supposed to be eye and ear witnesses of the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is not permissible for them to say, I believe, simply; I have accepted it, simply because I believe it. Read the revelation. The Lord informs us they must know, they must get the knowledge for themselves, it must be with them as if they had seen with their eyes and heard with their ears, and they know the truth. That is their mission, to testify of Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead and clothed now with almighty power at the right hand of God, the Savior of the world. That is their mission, and their duty; and that is the doctrine and the truth, that is their duty to preach to the world, and see that it is preached to the world." (Improvement Era 19:646-652, May 1916.)
    • If claims are made to being "witnesses"–"special" or otherwise–then for that to be true, they better have witnessed something.  If they are claiming to be "witnesses," yet have not witnessed what is required to qualify as a "witness,"  then they are necessarily bearing false witness.  When they do this, and then close such remarks "in the name of Jesus Christ," they are necessarily taking the name of the Lord in vain (Exodus 20:7), which is not understood as using His name in an expletive fashion, but instead claiming to speak His words, authorized in His behalf as His sent messenger, when He surely has not sent any man to falsely claim the title of "witness."
    • Direct claims to being a proper witness have been replaced by “twinkling eye” insinuations, or more correctly prevarications, refusing to answer such questions directly by hiding behind calling such matters too sacred to even acknowledge (a misunderstanding of the council not to cast pearls before swine, which refers to something else entirely), and letting others assert the claims in their behalf.  This appears to grant these leaders plausible deniability, as they refuse to directly confirm or deny such events occurring in their lives, so they can avoid the accusation that they lied about receiving something they haven’t.  These are not the actions of one who has received the ministration of Christ, for I have met those who have actually received Him, and I have received of His ministration myself.  The Lord doesn’t really stand for one called as His "Apostle" to remain silent or dodgy about being an actual witness of His resurrection and atonement, at least without consequences.  If an Apostle is legitimate, having earned the fulness of that title, he will make clear and direct claims to having met the resurrected Savior and being a witness to His atoning sacrifice.
  • Efforts by the Church to squash and remove the teachings of receiving the Second Comforter as an essential part of the fulness of the gospel.
    • The scriptures teach us to literally seek the face of God (e.g. D&C 93:1, 101:38), for to know Him–which requires meeting Him–brings redemption from the Fall and eternal life (John 17:3; Ether 3:13; D&C 132:23-24).  If we do not qualify to enter into His presence here, what makes us think that we will be qualified simply because we’ve died?
    • Teachings about the Second Comforter have been removed from the footnotes of our scriptures (as of the 2013 edition, e.g. footnote a of John 14:16 has been changed to refer to the Holy Ghost, where it originally referred to Jesus Christ, the Second Comforter). 
    • Any efforts to speak about the subject or express a sincere belief in or attribute importance to this doctrine as taught by Joseph Smith and the scriptures are increasingly met with opposition and even hostility by Church leadership. Elder Oaks and LDS assistant historian Richard Turley went so far as to call it a trick of the devil in their recent conference in Boise, Idaho. (“the suggestion that this must happen in mortality is a familiar tactic of the adversary” — Elder Oaks.)  Church-related organizations such as FAIR and LDS Meridian Magazine have adopted the same position in their publications.  Talks have been given in church meetings belittling or denouncing the topic.  
    • Joseph Smith, on the other hand, taught it as an essential portion of the fulness of the gospel.  The scriptures agree with him on this matter (e.g. 2 Nephi 32:6; Ether 3:13; D&C 76:118).  So do I.
  • The rejecting of the fulness of the gospel by the LDS Church, as prophesied, costing the general authorities all legitimate claims to having priesthood authority in the eyes of God.
    • Christ knew what He was talking about when he said the Gentiles in the last days would reject the fulness of the gospel (3 Nephi 16:10), at which point He would take it from them and return it to the House of Israel.  The Church once understood (though in recent years this understanding has been lost) that we are not the House of Israel (e.g. 2 Nephi 30:3).  We are the Gentiles, hoping to be among the few adopted into the House of Israel (3 Nephi 16:13).  Joseph Smith identified us as Gentiles (D&C 109:60), as does the title page of the Book of Mormon, and the words of the prophets within its pages (e.g. 1 Nephi 13:34-35).  Our general rejection of the fulness of Christ’s gospel was prophesied, and His word is of course coming to pass.
    • We have systematically rejected portions of the gospel as found in the scriptures, replacing them with commandments of men, like those found in the Church Handbooks of Instructions.  The Handbook literally trumps the scriptures in any instance of disagreement, as a matter of policy.  The LDS Church, through preference for our fathers’ traditions and philosophies over scripture, and through the instrumentation of unrighteous dominion, has now sufficiently rejected the fulness of the gospel.  As a consequence, the general authorities of the Church have been stripped of all legitimate claims to priesthood and the related keys, and been left to their own devices to kick against the pricks as the Lord begins His new work, to restore the House of Israel to the fulness of the gospel.  As He told us in scripture that He would.  And, like in the days when John the Baptist was used to strip the Jews of their Divine authority, none of the leadership recognizes what is unfolding with the the same occurring recently and the loss of their own authority in the eyes of God, being in such a darkness that they see not that something has been lost, instead confusing emotional response—such as that instilled by HeartSell—for stirrings of the Spirit of God.
  • The "Follow the Prophet" doctrine, which has become the central–and arguably singular–doctrine of the LDS Church.
    • Joseph Smith taught that we should not follow any man, including himself. The Church's current position is a complete reversal.
      • "And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Joseph Smith Millennial Star, 14:38, pp. 593-95.)
      • "If anything should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, except by commandment, or thus saith the Lord, we do not consider it binding; therefore our hearts shall not be grieved if different arrangements should be entered into." (TPJS, p. 136.)
      • "President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel—said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church—that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls—applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall—that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves." (TPJS, pp. 237-238)
    • The scriptures also teach abundantly that we are not to follow any man, entrusting our salvation to their ability to correctly lead us to redemption (e.g. Jeremiah 17:5; 2 Nephi 4:34; 2 Nephi 28:31).
    • God’s word is only God’s word when it is God who said it. Someone who holds the office of prophet does not have license to invent God’s word. Any portion of their words that is not repeated from what they heard from God is no different than anyone else’s word. There is a great difference between: “I say what God says to me” and “what I say is God's word, whether he said it to me or not.”
    • More than pretty much any other group, it has been the leaders of the Lord's Church which have been denounced and condemned for wickedness throughout all of scripture (e.g. Jeremiah 23:1-2; Jeremiah 50:6; Ezekiel 13:3; Ezekiel 34:1-10; Matthew 23:13-29; Mormon 8:35-41; D&C 64:38-39).  These condemnations include declarations that the leaders of the Lord's people do in fact frequently lead them astray.
    • The Church itself has sought to backpedal on previous official doctrines, declared by Presidents of the Church in the name of Jesus Christ, attempting to reclassify them after the fact as only having been incorrect opinions and not official Church doctrines. This is not only dishonest, but an institutional hypocrisy in failing to "Follow the Prophet[s]" who instituted those doctrines. For if past prophets can be rewritten and corrected, which necessarily acknowledges their teachings must have been false, how can we claim those leaders did not lead the people astray in their time? Or how can we trust that current leadership claims and positions won't be reversed as "false" by later generations of leaders, meaning we are currently being led astray by them?  This is why we must rely only upon the unchanging God.
      • “The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.” ("Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church," LDS Newsroom, 29 Feb 2012)
      • "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97, quoting President Brigham Young)
    • If the Prophet were incapable of leading the Church astray, as is asserted by the "Follow the Prophet" doctrine, not only would this completely negate the agency of the Prophets and people, but it actually validates the claims of the Catholic Church to being the Lord's one true Church, they having used the exact same basis to substantiate their authority since Peter as we have since Joseph. If the Catholic Church could apostatize, despite using the exact same claims to legitimacy as the LDS Church, then the LDS Church is necessarily equally capable of apostasy. It is against the Church's own self-interests to assert this false doctrine.
  • Dishonest claims concerning teachings, history and practices of the Church and its leaders.
    • For example, the meddling of general authorities in expressly local affairs, such as Church discipline, while claiming to have no involvement in such things. They will even reference Joseph Smith’s statement that the “twelve apostles have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes where there is a regular high council established, to regulate any matter pertaining thereto” (High Council minutes, 2 May 1835). Yet both Seventies and members of the Quorum of the Twelve have directly injected themselves into the disciplinary processes of localized matters, without invitation or appeal, even commanding stake presidents to excommunicate people where the Stake President didn’t feel any disciplinary action was warranted.  This is top-down oppression by general authorities, often waged under the clandestine arm of the Strengthening the Church Members Committee, while the Church simultaneously declares that general authorities never have such involvement with local discipline. (e.g. Church Press Release, 11 June 2014.)
    • The Church has also consistently and publicly lied about the practice of polygamy ending in 1890.  The Official Declaration was a deceptive political document meant to throw the government off the backs of the Church so they could resume the practice without the watchful eye of the government. Polygamy continued, with First Presidency approval, not only in Mexico but also in the US, until at least 1904, when Joseph F. Smith issued the second manifesto.  (If the first manifesto ended polygamy, why was the second needed?) This has been known and published about for decades, even in the Church. For example BYU professor D. Michael Quinn wrote about it and received acknowledgement of its veracity by President Gordon B. Hinkley, only to have President Hinkley turn around years later and tell Larry King that the practice ended in 1890.
    • Falsely equating the current policy against children of gay parents with the policy against children of polygamists. Not only is it ironically foolhardy to point to one injustice to justify another, but children of polygamists can still receive a name and blessing, and can be baptized prior to 18 if they move away from their polygamous household.  Children of gays were initially denied both these opportunities afforded to children of polygamists with the policy change. Then the hasty update allowed for children to move out of the household of their gay parents and disavow them to receive baptism. Naming and blessing is still denied.
    • Elder Nelson's claim that we do not "vote" (Sustaining the Prophets, General Conference, Oct 2014) is a dangerous lie for a leader of the LDS Church to make, because it negates their own claims of authority. It was a simple electoral vote in Dec 1847–not revelation or Divine intervention of any sort–that made Brigham Young the President of the Church. If our sustaining vote is not to be understood as effective or meaningful, and is just a ceremonial gesture of fealty, then the entire structure of claims to priesthood authority through handing down keys made by the LDS Church is nullified, as the only thing transferring Joseph's mantle to Brigham was a vote.
  • Claims are made concerning the top leaders being “prophets, seers and revelators” whilst they deliver no prophecies, seeing, or revelations.
    • Concerning revelations, there have been efforts to claim that things like the missionary age change, the recent anti-gays-and-their-offspring policy, and even the 1978 Official Declaration are “revelations.”  But they simply do not fit the pattern or qualify.  For one, nothing has been “revealed” by these. There is nothing which once stood as unknown, a mystery to us, but has had the veil of mystery pulled back to expose to our view a new truth or new understanding, that being the very definition of “reveal.” Also, we have been given no words from the Lord. Despite popular belief, He doesn’t give His words to the President of the church, and then tell the President not to share the actual words, instructing him instead to only declare that words were stated which constituted a revelation.  The pattern of the unchanging God is to speak to the people,through a prophet, the prophet delivering the actual words of the Lord addressing the people.
    • In 1978, after years of admitted failure to get a revelation on the matter of blacks and the priesthood (President McKay having begun questioning the doctrine and vainly seeking evidence of a Divine founding), President Kimball ultimately decided they should change the policy, and ask the Lord to tip them off it was against His will.  Kimball convinced most of the other Brethren to agree to this, and sent those who didn’t away, so their opposing votes wouldn’t taint the "unanimity" of a vote of the remaining council.  Receiving no word of the Lord otherwise, they changed the policy. Heaven’s silence was taken as an affirmation of Divine approval, and thus elevated to a “revelation.”  The Official Declaration was made, not actually being the “revelation” but instead referencing a "revelation" therein, claiming that a revelation had been received and this Declaration was a product of it.  This is apparent in most of the readable journal accounts, but only McConkie’s lavishly embellished account of the process, which doesn’t harmonize with the rest, is ever referenced by the Church.
    • The missionary age change and the anti-gay-and-their-offspring policies were introduced as policy changes, with no claims by Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church, to their being revelations, or even the result thereof.  Such claims of "revelation" were made by others, in the wake of the changes.  President Monson’s lack of correcting these assertions is then taken as his endorsement.
      • Consider the anti-gay-and-their-offspring policy change, which was first published as an unannounced policy change in CHI-1 (which most members aren’t even allowed to see while yet being subject to it, like unto being subject to laws of which one is not allowed to learn, something found entirely offensive in government but supposedly Divine in the Church). It was then leaked by an anonymous source, shared publicly by an “apostate,” then explained by Elder Christofferson, further “clarified” by church PR, THEN implicitly (through prevarication) declared by President Nelson to have been a revelation to President Monson, without President Monson himself even making such claims.  This is the substance we purport to be evidence of “continuing revelation” in the church.
    • We have nothing to point to as evidence of or even evaluate as prophecy or seership from any current general authorities while seated in the chief seats of authority.  No such fruits to examine (Matthew 7:15-20).
    • We are supposed to qualify for titles before being called to receive them (JST Genesis 14:26-27; D&C 20:60). We have reversed the pattern in the modern church, placing titles upon men who provide no fruits warranting them, then acting as though the title itself imbues them with the power expected of the title.  We have no reasonable basis to believe this is how things do or should work, and we have scripture instructing us otherwise, yet it is those who are troubled by this shift away from scriptural instruction that are condemned by church leadership.
  • False claims made of being a lay church with an unpaid clergy, while the general authorities and mission presidents are in fact paid (and quite well).
    • The general authorities are all paid “stipends,” rather than “salaries,” many of which amount to $100,000 and more in value annually per authority, with higher ranks warranting higher stipends.  Being provided with not only money, but also homes, annual new luxury cars, access to private jets and hunting reserves, etc., there is nothing “unpaid” about such service.  While their pay could once be explained by their sitting on various boards of Church-owned businesses, that practice was done away with around 1995, and they are simply paid ministers now.
    • Mission Presidents are reimbursed for the overwhelming balance of costs they “pay” for their missions, even including random gifts to friends and family, as well as being granted free BYU tuition for their children.  This, rather than going without purse or scrip as required of traveling ministers by scripture.
  • False teachings by the Church concerning its founding Prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. being a polygamist (’s article “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo”).
    • Joseph Smith fought against polygamy, both in word and in deed, for the entirety of his ministry unto his death.  Every evidence supporting claims of polygamy hemorrhages validity under scrutiny, but we’ve made it part of the LDS historical narrative and we set at naught the facts and evidences to the contrary.  Brigham Young and some of his cohorts instituted polygamy, utilizing Joseph’s name to sell it to the church, corrupting Joseph’s misunderstood sealing ordinances, which are not at all the same as polygamy as was taught and practiced. Women were sealed to Joseph related to eternity, but he had no others wives in this world save Emma.
      • Even today the Church clearly doesn’t understand sealings, sealing together strings of dead and unredeemed family members, without sealing anyone to the fathers which are in heaven (as opposed to in the spirit world, expounded by Joseph Smith in a talk given March 10, 1844), which must be done to save anybody through sealing.

I could continue, but the above should suffice as grounds for understanding why I must vote in accord with the light of Christ in me against the present general authorities continuing to have my sustaining vote.  They cannot and do not have my support in such a state of corruption.  They have lost their priesthood authority, and therefore are not qualified to stand at the head of this common-consent church (though acknowledging that the common-consent basis of the church has also been nullified even beyond neutering the process of taking votes.  Every last person could vote opposed to the current leadership, and President Monson, as the singular member of the corporate sole who literally owns everything through the corporate restructure in the 1920s, could simply kick every last member out and lock up the doors of all the temples and meetinghouses and storehouses, legally claiming his rightful ownership of every last scrap).

The Lord has now washed His hands of efforts to lead or empower the institutional LDS Church, and is moving on as prophesied.  The recent policy change harming the innocent children of gays is an early fruit of this loss of God’s Spirit, and there are certainly more things coming down the pipe which will shake every continuing church member to their very foundation.  (For example, when the Church inevitably flip-flops in the future to a position of not only allowing gay marriage, but performing it, even sealing such in the temples, arguably fulfilling the abomination of desolation prophecy.  Claims will be made of a revelation to support the switch, but they will be false, and it is unlikely that efforts will be made to produce the “revelation” itself, like before).  This recent policy change is partly posturing to prepare for the inevitable flip, so claims can be made of being boldly faithful to one line of thought, until the unchanging God of Heaven purportedly changes His mind and decides to endorse sealing homosexual unions, at which point the church will likely, coincidentally happen to be facing the greatest socio-political pressure and serious threat to their tax-exemption status.

I recognize the likely consequences of this letter, but I have no choice if I am to stand right before God.  I have stood before Christ, and should I wish to do so with a clean conscience again, I must obey what my conscience–His light–requires of me.

The gospel is true.  Jesus is the Christ, whose Atoning sacrifice is the essential linchpin of all salvation.  The Book of Mormon is true.  Joseph Smith Jr. was indeed a prophet and an honest man concerning what God shared with and required of him, and despite any weaknesses, he was true to Him unto death and Divinely acknowledged as such.  Regardless of what the institution may attempt to do to me, I will remain a member of Christ’s church (D&C 10:67), even if my membership among the LDS is severed. The Restoration was hijacked with Joseph’s death, and the fullness of the Gentiles has now come upon us as a result.  We were placed under condemnation as a church in 1832, and that condemnation has never been removed, only exacerbated.  We have disrespected and corrupted what we have been given, and the Times of the Gentiles have reached their prophesied fulness and are now ending.  Joseph Smith’s last vision–of which we never speak–is indeed finding its fulfillment in the rejection of Joseph and all he taught, lived and died for.  The dividing of the wheat and the tares is coming in, the angels picking through the wide nets which have collected all manner of fish, and the chosen will be recognized only by fidelity to Jesus Christ, not to a man who vainly claims the title “Prophet,” nor the organization which he runs. Especially when it runs afoul of Him who established it, which behavior has led to His current dismantling of it.

I vote opposed to all the general leadership as presently constituted. Feel free to contact me with any questions concerning what I have said.


Brother Michael Hamill"