Gradual Apostasy

[Commons] [School] [Garden] [Kitchen] [Meditorium] [Library]
apostasy/gradual.htm

yist&feog wrote about the manifesto:
>My claim is that in order for them to fail, 
>the entire church at this time, including the 
>leadership, would have to have been removed 
>from God for some time.

Yes, the apostles, and people were removed from God. It was more important to the church to get political gain, (statehood, and ability to vote) than it was for them to obey God. So the church as a whole turned their backs on God. They did not turn instantly aside from all truth, there are still many good things that are taught by the LDS even to this day, but as a whole, the church has, and I believe at that point did, turn aside from the principles that would have established the Kingdom of God on the earth. I believe that the LDS church no longer has the will, the power, or the keys to build Zion. What else can the prophet do if the people have rejected him?

>If the Manifesto was against God's will, for the 
>quorum of the twelve to sustain it would indicate 
>their own apostasy.

Yes, the leading brethren and the people were indicating their apostasy, and their desire to go whoring after Babylon, instead of building up Zion. A desire to get statehood, and the right to vote, and political power. In other words, they changed the doctrines of the church in order to get gain and praise of the world (priestcraft).

>You claim that the church was only starting 
>to go apostate at this time, which sounds ludicrous 
>to me. Either the manifesto indicated that the 
>church as a whole was apostate, or it was not 
>apostate. It does not indicate the beginning of 
>apostasy.

It is not an either/or situation. A process was started, which continues to this day, and has accelerated in recent decades. Do you think that someone wakes up one day and says, "Gee, I think I will apostatize today?" Not hardly. It is a slow process which may take many years, especially when we are talking about the whole church. It took time for the church to forget it's roots. Polygamy was one doctrine to be lost, others followed, until we stand at a point today, where Joseph Smith wouldn't even recognize the church that he founded.

>And when was the last time someone in the 
congregation opposed the sustaining of the prophet?

Even if someone wanted to, most people don't have the courage to vote no, because the attitude of the church is that anyone who votes against the leaders is an apostate. The saints know this, and act accordingly.

>I believe 
>that people can oppose the sustaining of 
>their local officials, and still be good 
>members.

So when was the last time you ever saw it happen? By an apostate no doubt if ever!

>I do not know of anyone who has opposed the 
>sustaining of the prophet. And if someone did 
>oppose the prophet, how long would they want 
>to stay in the church?

See how you confirm what I said above. Not sustaining = Apostate

>If someone does not sustain 
>the current prophet, they have serious spiritual 
>issues that need to be dealt with. If they are 
>unwilling to repent, then excommunication may be 
>appropriate.

Again, you are saying that Not sustaining = Apostate

Is it any wonder that people live in fear of raising their hand to not sustain unrighteous leaders?

sustaining vote

> You, if my memory serves me correct, 
> have made statements which imply, if they do 
> not directly say, that all of the leaders of 
> the church are corrupt. I do not believe that 
> he can make such charges without meeting all 
> of the leaders.

The church, leaders and members alike are corrupt. That does not mean that every leader and every member is corrupt, rather that as a whole, the church, because of political, social, and media pressure, has abandoned every principle, and every doctrine which would have lead to the establishment of Zion. And with few exceptions, (perhaps less than 5%) the church walks in a pride that would have caused even the Zoramites or the Nehors to blush in shame. I have received a fullness of the fruits of the church, and have found the fruit to be like a rose hip, that has hung on the bush through the winter. There is still nourishment in it, and it still has some flavor and sweetness, but it is a far cry from the sweetness and flavor it had last summer, before it was treated to the harshness of a cold winter.

>However, you are missing the point. I was stating 
>that we cannot make accusations against someone 
>based solely on personal revelation. This
>leaves us open to tremendous abuse 
>(kind of like the witch trials).

Proof that the LDS longer teach Mormonism surrounds us on all sides. (Read the biographies of your Mormon ancestors.) The worst condemnation of the church that I can find is in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Add to that the conference talks from 1850-1889, and you have a scathing rebuke of the church. President Benson clearly taught that the whole church is under condemnation. These writings are much more harsh in their rebukes than I care to be.

Question: What is the most potent anti-LDS literature?
Answer: General conference talks from 1850-1890.

Question: What is the most potent pro-fundamentalist Mormon literature?
Answer: General conference talks from 1850-1890.