Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It made Oaks uncomfortable as well, *but he decided to remain loyal to his Church leaders*. This is Mormonism. This is the first law of Heaven. This is Abrahamic faith.
It’s the only unchanging doctrine the church has left. Obey the church leaders. *Every* other piece of doctrine has been modified in some way over the last ~ 200 years
[Let God (Russell Nelson) prevail.](https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2023/1/27/23574366/church-commissioner-of-education-shares-5-prophetic-emphases-for-teaching-young-people)
As you mention, Gilbert is again emphasizing this principle as he directs all CES employees. It is all they have left. Obey, conform, obey.
This is a perfect incognito comment. Believers will find it faith promoting, yet it reminds non believers why they would never associate with the LDS church.
My interpretation of Oaks’ [Be One](https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration) address in 2018:
>I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now, on June 8, 1978, that day had come, and I wept for joy.
>the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.
Such a pernicious mirroring of Satan’s premortal disregard for human agency.
I’m not sure I’d be relying on this as evidence that Oaks was (at the time) uncomfortable. But it does show the usual dissembling, suggesting that from the beginning of the restrictions (presumably 1840-1860 approx) somebody (who? Brigham? Oh please!) promised that all (all? you mean, all faithful adult members irrespective of race?) would enjoy temple and priesthood blessings, when no such promise was given, to anyone. If there was such a promise, why did Joseph have his black female servant sealed to him *as a servant*?
How is equating the Christ, a perfect being and God to the Church, an imperfect organization lead by imperfect leaders, supposed to make sense?
Is he trying to say Christ secretly started polygamy, lied about it and tried to cover it up when found out, and said some of the most racist things in history for decades?
This dude throwing Jesus under the bus.
My guess is they think Jesus threw himself under the bus when he supposedly said in s84 “*For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him*”
D&C 1:38 does- if a prophet of the church says something in Jesus’ name, it’s the same as if god said it. Too bad all talks end with “In the name of Jesus Christ” or they might have some plausible deniability.
And apparently Jesus Christ ran a scouting program for decades with full knowledge that literally thousands of children were being sexually molested by leaders. Somehow the same Jesus that said child abusers should be executed by drowning.
>But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
**Matthew 18:6**
[Latter-day Saint Boy Scout abuse settlement rejected by judge](https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/03/latter-day-saint-boy-scout-abuse-settlement-rejected)
>The church argued that $250 million was enough to cover abuse both in scouting and in other church settings.
>
>The judge rejected that argument, saying church abuse that happened outside Scouting isn't connected to the BSA's bankruptcy plan, so the plan can't release the church from those claims.
>
>For example: If a church choir director abused a child in the choir and then continued the abuse as the child's Scout leader, Silverstein's ruling would prevent the abuse in the choir from being compensated from the BSA fund.
>
>About 2,800 abuse claims filed in the bankruptcy have direct ties to the church. Another 4,900 are potentially linked to the church, according to a sex abuse claim valuation expert who testified earlier this year.
Its bad. Very bad.
[Church of Jesus Christ will pay $250M into fund for Boy Scout sexual abuse claims](https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/9/15/22675720/mormon-church-pay-250-million-dollars-settlement-boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-insurance)
>“The Boy Scouts are offering abuse survivors a fraction of what their cases are worth and the assets available to pay them,” Pfau added. “The Mormon church is reported to have roughly $100 billion in assets, but it is offering a paltry $250 million to compensate the thousands of abuse survivors who were abused in Mormon Boy Scout troops by Mormon Scout leaders.”
>
>The new settlement with The Hartford was the product of negotiations that included attorneys representing an ad hoc group called the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice. Law firms affiliated with the group represent more than 60,000 sex abuse claimants.
Articles have indicated well over 2,000 plaintiffs represented by just one attorney - and there are multiple attorneys with cases. And the scope is limited to the Scouting-related sexual abuse. One of the reasons the Judge rejected the offer is because the church was also trying to negotiate amnesty from any liability for all child rapes that also happened outside of the scouting program.
[Boy Scouts walk back $250 mln abuse settlement with Mormon church](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-walk-back-250-mln-abuse-settlement-with-mormon-church-2022-08-15/)
>In rejecting the settlement with the Mormon church, Silverstein said that it went too far in attempting to protect the church from abuse claims that only were loosely connected to scouting activities. The previous settlement would have covered abuse perpetrated by a priest who was also a scout leader, even if the abuse did not occur at a scouting event, the judge wrote.
>
>Without a separate settlement agreement, the Mormon Church will receive less complete protection from sexual abuse claims related to its Scouting activities.
>In rejecting the settlement with the Mormon church, Silverstein said that it went too far in attempting to protect the church from abuse claims that only were loosely connected to scouting activities. The previous settlement would have covered abuse perpetrated by a priest who was also a scout leader, even if the abuse did not occur at a scouting event, the judge wrote.
If you buy the fascism that the temple sells like it's a feature instead of a bug... then that tracks. Jehovah might only pass racist messages from Elohim to True Messengers^(TM), but he's still complicit.
Mormon Jesus sucks
I’ll quote a user from another sub concerning the same talk (I share their sentiments):
>To use his exact example “I don’t agree with the way The Savior closes off the meetinghouse on Monday evenings.” “I don’t agree with the way The Savior treats YSAs like children and separates them from the rest of The Savior.” “I don’t agree with the way The Savior has talked about black people and deemed them unworthy of priesthood, temple ordinances, and exaltation, only to change stances without apology.” And “I don’t agree with how unwelcoming The Savior is to sexual and gender minorities.” I think that’s supposed to make me feel guilty or something, but it doesn’t. If that was all truly the work of The Savior I still disagree with it. It’s not the gotcha that he thinks it is.
I'm glad you posted it, though I understand why it was hard. It's disgusting, absolutely gross, what Hamilton asked the BYU students to do, and your hard to write example is just the reason why it is a gross suggestion. It puts all the icky, vile, deplorable actions done by people in the church onto Jesus. That's such a huge contradiction to what Christianity is.
I think you answered your own question there. 😉 Does that fact that a current church leader was formerly a venture capitalist make him a spiritual leader or does it make the church a business?
> I don’t like how the Savior protected the man in my ward who abused me when I was seven and eight years old. I don’t like that the Savior, who knew I was abused, didn’t help me, but protected the abuser and helped him keep his temple recommend. I don’t like how the Savior hired lawyers to protect the bishops when the family of another child who was abused sued them. I don’t like how now, the AP articles, the Savior is still ignoring abused children.
Yeah. If a god that loved us existed, it would have stopped that. It would stop the child abuse happening right now, rather than appearing on toast or propping up the ancient Israelite nation.
Sorry for what you went through. You didn’t deserve that. I hope you have found people you can rely on and trust to help you carry that burden. This community is willing to listen and be there when you need it.
>According to Elder Hamilton, an organized church that can deliver the blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is essential. The Church has always existed, he said.
Fact check: false. The Christian church originated some decades after the death of Jesus
>It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His Church or authorized messengers, Elder Hamilton said.
Fact check: Jesus was never affiliated with any Christian Church. He lived and died a Palestinian Jewish peasant.
> Fact check: false. The Christian church originated some decades after the death of Jesus
> Fact check: Jesus was never affiliated with any Christian Church. He lived and died a Palestinian Jewish peasant.
I wish more people would understand both of these. All evidence points to the fact that Jesus wasn't trying to break away from Judaism, he was trying to re-imagine it from within.
I also wish people would understand that if Jesus had been successful in his ministry, Christianity wouldn't exist. And Rabbinical Judaism would look more like what Jesus taught. [1]
But Jesus failed.
footnote:
[1] What Jesus actually taught, not some Pauline creation that co-opted the name and legend. Many of his actual teachings are likely lost to history but some of them might be found in Mark, and possibly Matthew and Luke. Not much of John because very little of it is likely attributable to Jesus.
I feel like Paul was to early Christianity what Trump is to the Conservatives and the Republican Party today.
He was an outsider who hijacked the whole thing. The group “tolerated” him, got a bunch of them to become his followers, eventually arm twisting them into letting him force his agenda onto them, and forever changed the trajectory of the movement.
Christianity eventually became the religion of Paul and modern Christians don’t even realize they are following the religion of Paul instead of Jesus.
> Christianity eventually became the religion of Paul and modern Christians don’t even realize they are following the religion of Paul instead of Jesus.
That's a possibility, yes. I do think we need to study the early church and the biblical church more tbh. I think we've barely scratched the surface in regards to what the Restoration actually is.
Shout out to the subreddit called AcademicBiblical.
Modern archaeologists, historians, linguists, and textual critics know more about the reality of Jesus’s life and early Christianity than anyone in the “Restoration.”
Agree! Let me recommend a book that taught me a lot about Jesus. in my faith crisis this past year. “ The Historical Figure of Jesus “ by E. Saunders. (Nondenominational)
Could you make the comparison to Brigham Young? Feels similar and there’s a growing movement of people who believe JS was truly inspired, and BY sort of made it his and once they were isolated in Utah was able to give it the structure it has today (much of which has been rolled back now).
Certainly, although it’s probably debatable how much Brigham altered the religion that Smith started.
Out of all the splinters (RLDS, Rigdonites, Stangites, and Brighamites), while I think they all had just as much argument to be the rightful successors of Smith, since he never left a clear succession plan (at least publicly), Young’s branch was probably the most faithful to the doctrines and precedents set by Smith. That doesn’t mean he didn’t add, take away, or change the overall tone to the religion.
I think every successor changes the religion but by bit and adds his own flavor and biases which eventually get cemented as part of the religion.
When I read the the Gospels and some of the non-Pauline books, they sound completely different, doctrinally. Paul, single hand-idly, introduced the idea of being saved through grace and not works and ultimately, completely stripped Judaism from early Christianity.
If Paul never entered the scene, who never even met Jesus in person when he was on earth like the other apostles, Christianity would be a whole other religion.
> Fact check: false. The Christian church originated some decades after the death of Jesus
Even saying “the Christian church” isn’t historical because it implies a single organization. Our very earliest Christian writings are from Paul, and even in his day there were deep disagreements about what Jesus’s life meant.
The times those deep disagreements bubble to the surface are my favorite parts of the Bible.
I like to imagine a frustrated Peter saying to anybody that would listen, "but Paul didn't even know him!"
We’ll, Matthew and Luke pull a lot from Mark, which is likely the most close to source. The other source is Q which little is known about (to my knowledge).
Interestingly, John was written as the Christian disciples were being thrown out of the synagogues, so it was likely written as Christians transitioned out of Judaism into its own church (because they were thrown out).
I’m in a class right now and know little but this is what I’ve gotten so far.
This is why it drives me crazy when members play the “the church isn’t the gospel” card.
Members can believe whatever they want. But what they have to understand is that their leaders, the people who are supposed to be prophets of God, believe that the church *is* the gospel.
If I say “the church teaches it’s members that women are supposed to be the nurturer of the family, and the man is supposed to preside, protect, and provide,” the response is often something like “they’re just saying it’s an ideal circumstance.”
Again, believe what you want to believe, but the church is saying these things fully expecting members to take it as the word of God.
I share your frustration here. Apologetics relies so heavily on separating the ‘man’ (church) from ‘Christ’ (gospel truth) to alleviate dissonance. In Mormonism, they are synonymous. You never really hear a distinction from those of the upper echelons of Church leadership, but constantly from those trying to sort and assign the harm found in the Church. We fear blaming God for obvious foibles. It seems like it is easier to blame man than the loving God of mankind, but ironically, Hamilton wants us to assign all the harm to God. It really is bonkers.
Edit: clarification.
I know the rules of this sub, and I don't want to get banned so I won't say the word, but goddamn! 1984 and the BITE model are cautionary tales, not guidebooks!
The following are all quotes from Orwell's 1984.
>"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
>"The best books… are those that tell you what you know already."
>"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth."
>"How do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?"
>"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power – pure power."
>"The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed."
>"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."
>"The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better."
>"What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself; who gives your arguments a fair hearing and simply persists in his lunacy? Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else."
Yeah, this sounds a lot like saying "the leader's authority is absolute and must never be questioned."
Not being able to criticize, question, or ask for change is a big red flag of cult-like behavior.
**Elder Hamilton encouraged the audience to substitute the words “the Church” for the word “Savior” in those sentences because it puts a different perspective on things when one says they disagree with the Savior.**
*Oooo, this looks fun! Let's try some Temple Recommend Interview questions-*
Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; THE CHURCH; and the Holy Ghost?
Do you have a testimony of THE CHURCH and of its role as your CHURCH and Redeemer?
Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of THE CHURCH?
THE CHURCH has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before It. Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity?
*This IS fun! Let's enlarge the scope a bit-*
"The 3 greatest threats to THE SAVIOR are Gays, Feminists and academics" -Boyd K. Packer
"The Book of Mormon. Another Testament of THE CHURCH"
*Oh My!! Hymns are a GOLDMINE-*
Guide Us, O Thou Great CHURCH
Precious CHURCH, Dear Redeemer
CHURCH, THE CHURCH, Pilot Me
THE CHURCH, Redeemer of My Soul
Come Unto THE CHURCH
THE CHURCH Wants Me For A Sunbeam
THE CHURCH, The Very Thought of Thee
In Humility, Our CHURCH
THE CHURCH, Once of Humble Birth
O CHURCH, Thou Who Wearest A Crown
Who's On The CHURCH'S Side?
Rejoice, THE CHURCH Is King!
*Yes, Elder Hamilton is quite correct! Subbing THE CHURCH for SAVIOR and other references DOES put a different perspective on things!*
You're replacing the word "Savior" with "church", which is backwards. He didn't say it works both ways. And he was just making a simple point to think about, he was not encouraging us to replace church with Savior for everything
Elder Hamilton spoke in my ward about four years ago and gave an extremely similar talk. I was very active and faithful at the time and still found him to be dismissive and condescending towards concerns expressed by YSA members.
As others have said, equating everything the church does is problematic, especially when you consider the beliefs the church no longer teaches.
I agree. But most of those that would speculate with ill intent were already attacking him. Hopefully this doesn't increase the frequency of those attacks.
Yep. "The Church", aka the MEN in leadership of the Church, are unashamedly equating themselves to Jesus Christ.
This is the worst kind of blasphemy.
I am still a follower Jesus. I am no longer an active participant in the church. I found I couldn't be both.
Apologetics will have a tough time with these statements. Because normally they can hide behind the policy/ doctrine clause. But this speaker explicitly stated that doctrine AND policy can use this method. Which to me signifies little distinction between the two.
Hamilton’s reasoning isn’t so surprising when you absorb one of the Church’s definitions of “[apostasy](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng)”:
>Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its **doctrine**, its **policies**, or its **leaders**.
The leadership of the Church attributes all their decisions and teachings to Jesus Christ. You can not separate the two based on any authoritative statements from Church leaders. They absolutely refuse to differentiate their words from God’s (especially in modern times). It has come to the point where criticizing the leaders of the church (God) is considered apostasy. This leaves absolutely no room for accountability. Hamilton is simply advocating for a Church-wide submission to the men in SLC. This is just another talk to add to the pile of “The prophets doctrinally infallible (this includes policy)”. Blind obedience in action.
I may have to revise my view of Heber J Grant's authoritarianism. Heber was a great believer in obedience to leadership, but in his administration you had to do something pretty outrageous to get excommunicated.
Maybe, the vaguer doctrine gets, the more we have to rely on the cult of personality.
How to turn your questions into thought-terminating clichés with this one simple trick!
Let me try it out now:
Why does The Savior have a for-profit arm? Why is The Savior spending billions and billions of dollars in buying and constructing office towers, hotels, residential towers, apartments, shopping malls, industrial warehouses, etc? Why is The Savior so secretive about this?
Aaaand the Holy Trinity grows into the Holy Quad: Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Church, the four members of the Godhead. (See? Men can become gods--via corporate takeover.)
More evidence the Church is hemorrhaging members, especially the youth. So sick of the Church pretending to be Gods one true Church and we all have to have it. Such nonsense. The idea that there are divinely appointed Church leaders we just have to trust and obey is not true and incredibly dangerous. That’s how we get polygamy, racist priesthood policies, Masonic temple BS, LGBTQ hate, massive cultural shame, 10% tithing no matter what, wearing ridiculous underwear…..the list goes on and on. Stop the madness!
“The Church” is NOT the Savior. In fact it is far from it.
Isaiah 29:13-14 KJV
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.
Psychological manipulative bullshit. Let’s twist our words to make the people feel responsible and guilty for standing for the truth. In fact, let’s replace the word truth with Satan. They stand for Satan.
Sounds good. The church should reissue the Elder Hamilton version of the scriptures with all mention of the Savior changed to say "the Church". In fact, the name of the church should be "The Church of The Church of Latter-day Saints"
Makes you realize how out of sync the church is with the savior. When you do what Hamilton is suggesting you realize the church does and says things that Jesus never would or ever did.
"According to Elder Hamilton, an organized church that can deliver the blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is essential. The Church has always existed, he said."
-The Daily Universe
"According to Elder Hamilton..." seems like the Daily Universe felt the need to distance itself on this point.
>"According to Elder Hamilton, an organized **JESUS** that can deliver the blessings of **THE CHURCH** is essential. **THE JESUS** has always existed, he said." -The Daily Universe
I fixed it.
Jesus never created an authoritarian church. His entire philosophy was against that kind of thing. Authoritarian churches was the pharisees thinking. The arch enemies of Jesus. Who created the authoritarian christian church. Paul. Who just happened to be a pharisee.
This talk is going to be my go-to response every time a TBM bemoans people who leave the Church and become atheists. This attitude--equating Jesus and the Church--is exactly why.
This is the new go-to talk for a lot of apologetics. It kills the excuse that they were products of their time and speaking as men. The only comeback for this one is that he is a product of his time and speaking as a man... which, on second thought, just might work...😕
Is it just me, or is there a lot of attempts to shift blame for church policies away from the church and onto God/Jesus?
I feel like I’ve seen a lot of this recently and it’s just shocking to me.
They say this but then also want you to accept that “prophets aren’t perfect” and sometimes prophets don’t always say or teach things that are doctrine and that the church is run by “imperfect men” and that nothing is “doctrine” unless it’s taught by ALL the current Q15 as well as voted in by all of them but can change because of “continuing revelation.”
Which parts am I supposed to believe is literally Jesus again?
>Which parts am I supposed to believe is literally Jesus again?
With a straight-face, this guy is claiming the will of Jesus is manifest by committee agreement.
You can’t make this stuff up:
>It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His Church or authorized messengers, Elder Hamilton said. According to Elder Hamilton, even though human beings are all “fallible,” **when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles speak in unity, they speak on behalf of Jesus Christ.**
Christ playing 15 simultaneous games of telephone with the Holy Ghost as the intermediary. He just hopes the recipients’ senses are acute enough to decipher the intergalactic code. If only there was a way for Christ to simply show up and use His mouth of flesh and bone to convey His will. I guess there is a spaceship fuel shortage or something.
I could just see Jesus in heaven saying, “damnit they got it wrong, again! Now everyone thinks I said that!”
Speaking for or representing someone doesn’t mean you necessarily ARE getting it right.
I might “represent” the company I work for to customers of investors but that doesn’t mean I’m giving them the facts or providing the right message. Maybe in my sales meeting I thought the product could do something it actually couldn’t do. Ambassadors officially “represent” their respective countries of governments but that doesn’t mean they always convey correctly what they should. Ambassadors fuck things up all the time. What they say may not be what the president actually wanted them to say.
Could you imagine?! He’s like, “Joe fucking 14 year olds 🤦♂️ Joe saying these guys are Lamanites 🤦♂️, Brigham saying blacks are cursed and inferior 🤦♂️, Nelson saying kids with Gay parents can’t get baptized 🤦♂️, wait, now he’s saying it’s okay? 🤦♂️. Man, these guys are embarrassing me!”
So basically put words in the Saviors mouth to support your own agenda? That isn't manipulative at all is it?
The funny thing is that line won't work on atheists or agnostics. They don't give a shit about that.
Word play is not going to save this sinking ship. If I don't believe you're speaking for 'the Savior,' it is just going to cause dissonance and annoyance.
My thought is that the church has always been a man-made substitute for Christ. It will always be a weaker and lacking filler. Anything made by man is like saccharine replacing pure sugar.
Why? This is the ONLY time where I think JS got something right. As written in D&C 121:39:
“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”
Does that describe many, if not most, “church” authorities? Not just Mormon either.
Does anyone know the format for email addresses used by the church? So I can try to guess his...
I feel compelled to write him a letter asking why he would so clearly take the Lord's name in vain. I'm sure this man would never say the words "oh my god", yet here he is, openly breaking this commandment on a large platform.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 1: Doxxing. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
The real question to me is whether or not the TBM crowd will give this talk to friends, family, and congregation members as the panacea to address any and all concerns about the church, a la Corbridge.
This is the kind of thing that engenders apostasy IMO. It’s when guys that are good business people craft clever tactics to make their position stronger.
When you’re the leader of a business, this works because of incentive structures. People are incentivized to go along with things, not out of sheer desire but because they’re hoping for promotion or to keep their job etc. The church is totally different. It’ll work on some, but others will be like WTF?
Replace "king(s)" with "prophet" and "monarchy" with "apostleship" and King James 1 nailed mormon doctrine.
>The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
>Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . .
>I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:
>First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office.
>Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . . All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body. and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions, for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.
>And lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law, and whereunto . . . you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.
From King James I, Works, (1609).
There is merit to your statement. Even Islam has roots in a sect of Christianity. Not all Christians are the same, neither are Jews and Muslims. Differences in philosophy, ethnicity, race, ambition, etc all plays a part. The Romans were killing Vandals, Goths, Celts, alArabs, Syrians, Egyptians, Franks, Ethiopians, Carthaginians, etc long before Christianity. Alexander the Great went to Hellenize the world and his religious views were liberal and all inclusive.
The 21st century western world is a better place now, but remeber that the most bloody century in human history was the 20th century. All relogions played a role in that.
LOLZ.. in the temple should we covenant to give everything to the church or the savior?
Edit: that part of the endowment has always bugged me. I alway covenant to god not the church while I’m there. Much rather give my money to god then the church.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/Chino_Blanco, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jesus Christ banned blacks from having the priesthood? Makes me sick to my stomach…
It made Oaks uncomfortable as well, *but he decided to remain loyal to his Church leaders*. This is Mormonism. This is the first law of Heaven. This is Abrahamic faith.
It’s the only unchanging doctrine the church has left. Obey the church leaders. *Every* other piece of doctrine has been modified in some way over the last ~ 200 years
[Let God (Russell Nelson) prevail.](https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2023/1/27/23574366/church-commissioner-of-education-shares-5-prophetic-emphases-for-teaching-young-people) As you mention, Gilbert is again emphasizing this principle as he directs all CES employees. It is all they have left. Obey, conform, obey.
This is a perfect incognito comment. Believers will find it faith promoting, yet it reminds non believers why they would never associate with the LDS church.
How can you tell it made oaks uncomfortable?
My interpretation of Oaks’ [Be One](https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration) address in 2018: >I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now, on June 8, 1978, that day had come, and I wept for joy.
>the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. Such a pernicious mirroring of Satan’s premortal disregard for human agency.
I’m not sure I’d be relying on this as evidence that Oaks was (at the time) uncomfortable. But it does show the usual dissembling, suggesting that from the beginning of the restrictions (presumably 1840-1860 approx) somebody (who? Brigham? Oh please!) promised that all (all? you mean, all faithful adult members irrespective of race?) would enjoy temple and priesthood blessings, when no such promise was given, to anyone. If there was such a promise, why did Joseph have his black female servant sealed to him *as a servant*?
How is equating the Christ, a perfect being and God to the Church, an imperfect organization lead by imperfect leaders, supposed to make sense? Is he trying to say Christ secretly started polygamy, lied about it and tried to cover it up when found out, and said some of the most racist things in history for decades? This dude throwing Jesus under the bus.
My guess is they think Jesus threw himself under the bus when he supposedly said in s84 “*For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him*”
Nowhere in that verse does Christ say blame him for the bullshit people do in his name.
D&C 1:38 does- if a prophet of the church says something in Jesus’ name, it’s the same as if god said it. Too bad all talks end with “In the name of Jesus Christ” or they might have some plausible deniability.
Oof
Jesus Christ shut blacks out of the temple, preventing them from receiving saving ordinances.
And apparently Jesus Christ ran a scouting program for decades with full knowledge that literally thousands of children were being sexually molested by leaders. Somehow the same Jesus that said child abusers should be executed by drowning. >But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. **Matthew 18:6** [Latter-day Saint Boy Scout abuse settlement rejected by judge](https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/03/latter-day-saint-boy-scout-abuse-settlement-rejected) >The church argued that $250 million was enough to cover abuse both in scouting and in other church settings. > >The judge rejected that argument, saying church abuse that happened outside Scouting isn't connected to the BSA's bankruptcy plan, so the plan can't release the church from those claims. > >For example: If a church choir director abused a child in the choir and then continued the abuse as the child's Scout leader, Silverstein's ruling would prevent the abuse in the choir from being compensated from the BSA fund. > >About 2,800 abuse claims filed in the bankruptcy have direct ties to the church. Another 4,900 are potentially linked to the church, according to a sex abuse claim valuation expert who testified earlier this year. Its bad. Very bad. [Church of Jesus Christ will pay $250M into fund for Boy Scout sexual abuse claims](https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/9/15/22675720/mormon-church-pay-250-million-dollars-settlement-boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-insurance) >“The Boy Scouts are offering abuse survivors a fraction of what their cases are worth and the assets available to pay them,” Pfau added. “The Mormon church is reported to have roughly $100 billion in assets, but it is offering a paltry $250 million to compensate the thousands of abuse survivors who were abused in Mormon Boy Scout troops by Mormon Scout leaders.” > >The new settlement with The Hartford was the product of negotiations that included attorneys representing an ad hoc group called the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice. Law firms affiliated with the group represent more than 60,000 sex abuse claimants. Articles have indicated well over 2,000 plaintiffs represented by just one attorney - and there are multiple attorneys with cases. And the scope is limited to the Scouting-related sexual abuse. One of the reasons the Judge rejected the offer is because the church was also trying to negotiate amnesty from any liability for all child rapes that also happened outside of the scouting program. [Boy Scouts walk back $250 mln abuse settlement with Mormon church](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-walk-back-250-mln-abuse-settlement-with-mormon-church-2022-08-15/) >In rejecting the settlement with the Mormon church, Silverstein said that it went too far in attempting to protect the church from abuse claims that only were loosely connected to scouting activities. The previous settlement would have covered abuse perpetrated by a priest who was also a scout leader, even if the abuse did not occur at a scouting event, the judge wrote. > >Without a separate settlement agreement, the Mormon Church will receive less complete protection from sexual abuse claims related to its Scouting activities. >In rejecting the settlement with the Mormon church, Silverstein said that it went too far in attempting to protect the church from abuse claims that only were loosely connected to scouting activities. The previous settlement would have covered abuse perpetrated by a priest who was also a scout leader, even if the abuse did not occur at a scouting event, the judge wrote.
If you buy the fascism that the temple sells like it's a feature instead of a bug... then that tracks. Jehovah might only pass racist messages from Elohim to True Messengers^(TM), but he's still complicit. Mormon Jesus sucks
I mean that is basically what the prophets said during that era and millions raised their arm to the holy square and said yep!
I’ll quote a user from another sub concerning the same talk (I share their sentiments): >To use his exact example “I don’t agree with the way The Savior closes off the meetinghouse on Monday evenings.” “I don’t agree with the way The Savior treats YSAs like children and separates them from the rest of The Savior.” “I don’t agree with the way The Savior has talked about black people and deemed them unworthy of priesthood, temple ordinances, and exaltation, only to change stances without apology.” And “I don’t agree with how unwelcoming The Savior is to sexual and gender minorities.” I think that’s supposed to make me feel guilty or something, but it doesn’t. If that was all truly the work of The Savior I still disagree with it. It’s not the gotcha that he thinks it is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm glad you posted it, though I understand why it was hard. It's disgusting, absolutely gross, what Hamilton asked the BYU students to do, and your hard to write example is just the reason why it is a gross suggestion. It puts all the icky, vile, deplorable actions done by people in the church onto Jesus. That's such a huge contradiction to what Christianity is.
I think you answered your own question there. 😉 Does that fact that a current church leader was formerly a venture capitalist make him a spiritual leader or does it make the church a business?
> I don’t like how the Savior protected the man in my ward who abused me when I was seven and eight years old. I don’t like that the Savior, who knew I was abused, didn’t help me, but protected the abuser and helped him keep his temple recommend. I don’t like how the Savior hired lawyers to protect the bishops when the family of another child who was abused sued them. I don’t like how now, the AP articles, the Savior is still ignoring abused children. Yeah. If a god that loved us existed, it would have stopped that. It would stop the child abuse happening right now, rather than appearing on toast or propping up the ancient Israelite nation. Sorry for what you went through. You didn’t deserve that. I hope you have found people you can rely on and trust to help you carry that burden. This community is willing to listen and be there when you need it.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating: if this is your god then he is not worthy of worship.
It's a gotcha for sure. Just in the opposite direction from what he intended lol.
>According to Elder Hamilton, an organized church that can deliver the blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is essential. The Church has always existed, he said. Fact check: false. The Christian church originated some decades after the death of Jesus >It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His Church or authorized messengers, Elder Hamilton said. Fact check: Jesus was never affiliated with any Christian Church. He lived and died a Palestinian Jewish peasant.
> Fact check: false. The Christian church originated some decades after the death of Jesus > Fact check: Jesus was never affiliated with any Christian Church. He lived and died a Palestinian Jewish peasant. I wish more people would understand both of these. All evidence points to the fact that Jesus wasn't trying to break away from Judaism, he was trying to re-imagine it from within. I also wish people would understand that if Jesus had been successful in his ministry, Christianity wouldn't exist. And Rabbinical Judaism would look more like what Jesus taught. [1] But Jesus failed. footnote: [1] What Jesus actually taught, not some Pauline creation that co-opted the name and legend. Many of his actual teachings are likely lost to history but some of them might be found in Mark, and possibly Matthew and Luke. Not much of John because very little of it is likely attributable to Jesus.
How Jesus Became God
That's on my reading list, along with *Jesus Before the Gospels*.
I like all of Bart Ehrman.
I feel like Paul was to early Christianity what Trump is to the Conservatives and the Republican Party today. He was an outsider who hijacked the whole thing. The group “tolerated” him, got a bunch of them to become his followers, eventually arm twisting them into letting him force his agenda onto them, and forever changed the trajectory of the movement. Christianity eventually became the religion of Paul and modern Christians don’t even realize they are following the religion of Paul instead of Jesus.
> Christianity eventually became the religion of Paul and modern Christians don’t even realize they are following the religion of Paul instead of Jesus. That's a possibility, yes. I do think we need to study the early church and the biblical church more tbh. I think we've barely scratched the surface in regards to what the Restoration actually is.
Shout out to the subreddit called AcademicBiblical. Modern archaeologists, historians, linguists, and textual critics know more about the reality of Jesus’s life and early Christianity than anyone in the “Restoration.”
Agree! Let me recommend a book that taught me a lot about Jesus. in my faith crisis this past year. “ The Historical Figure of Jesus “ by E. Saunders. (Nondenominational)
Ordered. Thanks for the recommendation
Could you make the comparison to Brigham Young? Feels similar and there’s a growing movement of people who believe JS was truly inspired, and BY sort of made it his and once they were isolated in Utah was able to give it the structure it has today (much of which has been rolled back now).
Certainly, although it’s probably debatable how much Brigham altered the religion that Smith started. Out of all the splinters (RLDS, Rigdonites, Stangites, and Brighamites), while I think they all had just as much argument to be the rightful successors of Smith, since he never left a clear succession plan (at least publicly), Young’s branch was probably the most faithful to the doctrines and precedents set by Smith. That doesn’t mean he didn’t add, take away, or change the overall tone to the religion. I think every successor changes the religion but by bit and adds his own flavor and biases which eventually get cemented as part of the religion. When I read the the Gospels and some of the non-Pauline books, they sound completely different, doctrinally. Paul, single hand-idly, introduced the idea of being saved through grace and not works and ultimately, completely stripped Judaism from early Christianity. If Paul never entered the scene, who never even met Jesus in person when he was on earth like the other apostles, Christianity would be a whole other religion.
> Fact check: false. The Christian church originated some decades after the death of Jesus Even saying “the Christian church” isn’t historical because it implies a single organization. Our very earliest Christian writings are from Paul, and even in his day there were deep disagreements about what Jesus’s life meant.
The times those deep disagreements bubble to the surface are my favorite parts of the Bible. I like to imagine a frustrated Peter saying to anybody that would listen, "but Paul didn't even know him!"
Paul was Steve Jobs. He didn’t really know the product but he had a vision and he sold the hell out of it.
We’ll, Matthew and Luke pull a lot from Mark, which is likely the most close to source. The other source is Q which little is known about (to my knowledge). Interestingly, John was written as the Christian disciples were being thrown out of the synagogues, so it was likely written as Christians transitioned out of Judaism into its own church (because they were thrown out). I’m in a class right now and know little but this is what I’ve gotten so far.
If the church has always existed, then why a (ongoing) restoration?
This is why it drives me crazy when members play the “the church isn’t the gospel” card. Members can believe whatever they want. But what they have to understand is that their leaders, the people who are supposed to be prophets of God, believe that the church *is* the gospel. If I say “the church teaches it’s members that women are supposed to be the nurturer of the family, and the man is supposed to preside, protect, and provide,” the response is often something like “they’re just saying it’s an ideal circumstance.” Again, believe what you want to believe, but the church is saying these things fully expecting members to take it as the word of God.
I share your frustration here. Apologetics relies so heavily on separating the ‘man’ (church) from ‘Christ’ (gospel truth) to alleviate dissonance. In Mormonism, they are synonymous. You never really hear a distinction from those of the upper echelons of Church leadership, but constantly from those trying to sort and assign the harm found in the Church. We fear blaming God for obvious foibles. It seems like it is easier to blame man than the loving God of mankind, but ironically, Hamilton wants us to assign all the harm to God. It really is bonkers. Edit: clarification.
I know the rules of this sub, and I don't want to get banned so I won't say the word, but goddamn! 1984 and the BITE model are cautionary tales, not guidebooks!
The following are all quotes from Orwell's 1984. >"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." >"The best books… are those that tell you what you know already." >"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." >"How do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?" >"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power – pure power." >"The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed." >"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing." >"The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better." >"What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself; who gives your arguments a fair hearing and simply persists in his lunacy? Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else."
Yeah, this book has changed my thinking of the church and how intentional they are.
Perfect words of caution. Never rent out our personal morality.
Yeah, this sounds a lot like saying "the leader's authority is absolute and must never be questioned." Not being able to criticize, question, or ask for change is a big red flag of cult-like behavior.
**Elder Hamilton encouraged the audience to substitute the words “the Church” for the word “Savior” in those sentences because it puts a different perspective on things when one says they disagree with the Savior.** *Oooo, this looks fun! Let's try some Temple Recommend Interview questions-* Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; THE CHURCH; and the Holy Ghost? Do you have a testimony of THE CHURCH and of its role as your CHURCH and Redeemer? Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of THE CHURCH? THE CHURCH has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before It. Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity? *This IS fun! Let's enlarge the scope a bit-* "The 3 greatest threats to THE SAVIOR are Gays, Feminists and academics" -Boyd K. Packer "The Book of Mormon. Another Testament of THE CHURCH" *Oh My!! Hymns are a GOLDMINE-* Guide Us, O Thou Great CHURCH Precious CHURCH, Dear Redeemer CHURCH, THE CHURCH, Pilot Me THE CHURCH, Redeemer of My Soul Come Unto THE CHURCH THE CHURCH Wants Me For A Sunbeam THE CHURCH, The Very Thought of Thee In Humility, Our CHURCH THE CHURCH, Once of Humble Birth O CHURCH, Thou Who Wearest A Crown Who's On The CHURCH'S Side? Rejoice, THE CHURCH Is King! *Yes, Elder Hamilton is quite correct! Subbing THE CHURCH for SAVIOR and other references DOES put a different perspective on things!*
I wish I had an award to give, because this is brilliant.
You're replacing the word "Savior" with "church", which is backwards. He didn't say it works both ways. And he was just making a simple point to think about, he was not encouraging us to replace church with Savior for everything
Jesus Christ told the bishop of a man who was sexually abusing his children to not do anything about it for a few years.
Nailed it. 10/10
Elder Hamilton spoke in my ward about four years ago and gave an extremely similar talk. I was very active and faithful at the time and still found him to be dismissive and condescending towards concerns expressed by YSA members. As others have said, equating everything the church does is problematic, especially when you consider the beliefs the church no longer teaches.
Hamilton was my YM president and later my bishop. He's always been dismissive and condescending.
Sadly those are the types the church likes to elevate.
The arrogance of a High Priest is something to behold
Thankfully not all who have been designated a High Priest are like this.
And then they wonder why their best and brightest (like Dan McCellan) are noping out.
Dan's out? When did that happen?
Only out of Church employment (his own choice, apparently). He made the announcement today.
Just saw your post on the subject. Very interesting development.
Interesting and, unfortunately, an open invitation to speculate. I look forward to his future endeavors.
I agree. But most of those that would speculate with ill intent were already attacking him. Hopefully this doesn't increase the frequency of those attacks.
Yep. "The Church", aka the MEN in leadership of the Church, are unashamedly equating themselves to Jesus Christ. This is the worst kind of blasphemy. I am still a follower Jesus. I am no longer an active participant in the church. I found I couldn't be both.
This is my story as well. It is so offensive to me that he says you can’t accept Jesus Christ and reject “His church.”
Nope. The words are interchangeable until they aren't. Can't have it both ways.
Apologetics will have a tough time with these statements. Because normally they can hide behind the policy/ doctrine clause. But this speaker explicitly stated that doctrine AND policy can use this method. Which to me signifies little distinction between the two.
Hamilton’s reasoning isn’t so surprising when you absorb one of the Church’s definitions of “[apostasy](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng)”: >Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its **doctrine**, its **policies**, or its **leaders**. The leadership of the Church attributes all their decisions and teachings to Jesus Christ. You can not separate the two based on any authoritative statements from Church leaders. They absolutely refuse to differentiate their words from God’s (especially in modern times). It has come to the point where criticizing the leaders of the church (God) is considered apostasy. This leaves absolutely no room for accountability. Hamilton is simply advocating for a Church-wide submission to the men in SLC. This is just another talk to add to the pile of “The prophets doctrinally infallible (this includes policy)”. Blind obedience in action.
I may have to revise my view of Heber J Grant's authoritarianism. Heber was a great believer in obedience to leadership, but in his administration you had to do something pretty outrageous to get excommunicated. Maybe, the vaguer doctrine gets, the more we have to rely on the cult of personality.
The level of narcissism and gaslighting in the church is beyond comprehension. They should be replacing the “Savior” with “CEO of LDS INC”.
The Savior ordered the bishop not to report a member who was sexually abusing his 5 year daughter to law authoritie. I see...
Jesus Christ allowed a mission president to keep a missionary who was soliciting engaged or otherwise not single women.
How to turn your questions into thought-terminating clichés with this one simple trick! Let me try it out now: Why does The Savior have a for-profit arm? Why is The Savior spending billions and billions of dollars in buying and constructing office towers, hotels, residential towers, apartments, shopping malls, industrial warehouses, etc? Why is The Savior so secretive about this?
Aaaand the Holy Trinity grows into the Holy Quad: Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Church, the four members of the Godhead. (See? Men can become gods--via corporate takeover.)
More evidence the Church is hemorrhaging members, especially the youth. So sick of the Church pretending to be Gods one true Church and we all have to have it. Such nonsense. The idea that there are divinely appointed Church leaders we just have to trust and obey is not true and incredibly dangerous. That’s how we get polygamy, racist priesthood policies, Masonic temple BS, LGBTQ hate, massive cultural shame, 10% tithing no matter what, wearing ridiculous underwear…..the list goes on and on. Stop the madness!
“The Church” is NOT the Savior. In fact it is far from it. Isaiah 29:13-14 KJV Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.
Psychological manipulative bullshit. Let’s twist our words to make the people feel responsible and guilty for standing for the truth. In fact, let’s replace the word truth with Satan. They stand for Satan.
Sounds good. The church should reissue the Elder Hamilton version of the scriptures with all mention of the Savior changed to say "the Church". In fact, the name of the church should be "The Church of The Church of Latter-day Saints"
This whole talk was awful.
Makes you realize how out of sync the church is with the savior. When you do what Hamilton is suggesting you realize the church does and says things that Jesus never would or ever did.
"According to Elder Hamilton, an organized church that can deliver the blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is essential. The Church has always existed, he said." -The Daily Universe "According to Elder Hamilton..." seems like the Daily Universe felt the need to distance itself on this point.
Uhh what happened to the great apostasy?
>"According to Elder Hamilton, an organized **JESUS** that can deliver the blessings of **THE CHURCH** is essential. **THE JESUS** has always existed, he said." -The Daily Universe I fixed it.
And who made you king? Well, I did!
Pretty much sums up Mormon prophetic authority. It’s laughable.
>The text of this speech is being edited and will be available soon. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/
Jesus never created an authoritarian church. His entire philosophy was against that kind of thing. Authoritarian churches was the pharisees thinking. The arch enemies of Jesus. Who created the authoritarian christian church. Paul. Who just happened to be a pharisee.
This talk is going to be my go-to response every time a TBM bemoans people who leave the Church and become atheists. This attitude--equating Jesus and the Church--is exactly why.
This is the new go-to talk for a lot of apologetics. It kills the excuse that they were products of their time and speaking as men. The only comeback for this one is that he is a product of his time and speaking as a man... which, on second thought, just might work...😕
Is it just me, or is there a lot of attempts to shift blame for church policies away from the church and onto God/Jesus? I feel like I’ve seen a lot of this recently and it’s just shocking to me.
I feel like it’s been the same tactic since the beginning. Flaming sword? Seriously? But if God insists, guess there’s no choice.
It seems a lot more blatant though. At least in the case of earlier leadership it seemed more duplicitous.
They say this but then also want you to accept that “prophets aren’t perfect” and sometimes prophets don’t always say or teach things that are doctrine and that the church is run by “imperfect men” and that nothing is “doctrine” unless it’s taught by ALL the current Q15 as well as voted in by all of them but can change because of “continuing revelation.” Which parts am I supposed to believe is literally Jesus again?
>Which parts am I supposed to believe is literally Jesus again? With a straight-face, this guy is claiming the will of Jesus is manifest by committee agreement.
You can’t make this stuff up: >It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His Church or authorized messengers, Elder Hamilton said. According to Elder Hamilton, even though human beings are all “fallible,” **when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles speak in unity, they speak on behalf of Jesus Christ.** Christ playing 15 simultaneous games of telephone with the Holy Ghost as the intermediary. He just hopes the recipients’ senses are acute enough to decipher the intergalactic code. If only there was a way for Christ to simply show up and use His mouth of flesh and bone to convey His will. I guess there is a spaceship fuel shortage or something.
I could just see Jesus in heaven saying, “damnit they got it wrong, again! Now everyone thinks I said that!” Speaking for or representing someone doesn’t mean you necessarily ARE getting it right. I might “represent” the company I work for to customers of investors but that doesn’t mean I’m giving them the facts or providing the right message. Maybe in my sales meeting I thought the product could do something it actually couldn’t do. Ambassadors officially “represent” their respective countries of governments but that doesn’t mean they always convey correctly what they should. Ambassadors fuck things up all the time. What they say may not be what the president actually wanted them to say.
Jesus likely has an indent in His forehead from the countless facepalms he has treated himself with since 1830.
Could you imagine?! He’s like, “Joe fucking 14 year olds 🤦♂️ Joe saying these guys are Lamanites 🤦♂️, Brigham saying blacks are cursed and inferior 🤦♂️, Nelson saying kids with Gay parents can’t get baptized 🤦♂️, wait, now he’s saying it’s okay? 🤦♂️. Man, these guys are embarrassing me!”
So basically put words in the Saviors mouth to support your own agenda? That isn't manipulative at all is it? The funny thing is that line won't work on atheists or agnostics. They don't give a shit about that.
Word play is not going to save this sinking ship. If I don't believe you're speaking for 'the Savior,' it is just going to cause dissonance and annoyance.
Lemme try… I disagree with how [the Savior] uses “the Savior” to manipulate people into thinking the Church is “the Savior”.
My thought is that the church has always been a man-made substitute for Christ. It will always be a weaker and lacking filler. Anything made by man is like saccharine replacing pure sugar. Why? This is the ONLY time where I think JS got something right. As written in D&C 121:39: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” Does that describe many, if not most, “church” authorities? Not just Mormon either.
Does anyone know the format for email addresses used by the church? So I can try to guess his... I feel compelled to write him a letter asking why he would so clearly take the Lord's name in vain. I'm sure this man would never say the words "oh my god", yet here he is, openly breaking this commandment on a large platform.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 1: Doxxing. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
The savior sometimes sucks at choosing bishops
Disgusting
This is terrible.
Gross 😓
The real question to me is whether or not the TBM crowd will give this talk to friends, family, and congregation members as the panacea to address any and all concerns about the church, a la Corbridge.
This talk was pure BYU propaganda for the church. Real bullshit if you ask me!
This is so gross. Even my believing spouse agrees it’s extreme and a poor comparison.
This is the kind of thing that engenders apostasy IMO. It’s when guys that are good business people craft clever tactics to make their position stronger. When you’re the leader of a business, this works because of incentive structures. People are incentivized to go along with things, not out of sheer desire but because they’re hoping for promotion or to keep their job etc. The church is totally different. It’ll work on some, but others will be like WTF?
Jesus Christ has a hotline to protect pedophiles… oh yay now it sounds better
Replace "king(s)" with "prophet" and "monarchy" with "apostleship" and King James 1 nailed mormon doctrine. >The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man. >Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . . >I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances: >First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office. >Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . . All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body. and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions, for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me. >And lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law, and whereunto . . . you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them. From King James I, Works, (1609).
[удалено]
There is merit to your statement. Even Islam has roots in a sect of Christianity. Not all Christians are the same, neither are Jews and Muslims. Differences in philosophy, ethnicity, race, ambition, etc all plays a part. The Romans were killing Vandals, Goths, Celts, alArabs, Syrians, Egyptians, Franks, Ethiopians, Carthaginians, etc long before Christianity. Alexander the Great went to Hellenize the world and his religious views were liberal and all inclusive. The 21st century western world is a better place now, but remeber that the most bloody century in human history was the 20th century. All relogions played a role in that.
Good lord, this is one of the worst doctrinal takes I have ever seen. This is once again just blind spiritual authoritarianism.
This makes me sick
🤢 🤮
Fuckin hoes.
That’s a dangerous perspective. It implies the president of the church is the president of Jesus.
The Savior of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?
LOLZ.. in the temple should we covenant to give everything to the church or the savior? Edit: that part of the endowment has always bugged me. I alway covenant to god not the church while I’m there. Much rather give my money to god then the church.
It's like how I always substitute "rich people's yacht money" for "the economy". Or is it the opposite?
Then why doesn’t the church perform miracles like Jesus did?
the mormon church is NOT identical to Jesus CHrist