Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ
Pure Mormonism ^ | October 31, 2010 | Alan Rock Waterman

Posted on 11/30/2010 9:14:06 AM PST by greyfoxx39

 

Scroll down for
The Vanishing LDS Church
Alan Rock Waterman

Without a doubt the most startling discovery in Daymon Smith's book is his revelation that the church that Joseph Smith established in 1830 no longer even exists. At all.
 
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mammon-About-Corporation-Mormons/product-reviews/1451553706/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

What we think of as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, says Smith, operates today as a mere trademark of the corporation that owns the name to it. The actual church that used to go by that name, and which claims Jesus Christ as its head, does not exist today in any legally recognized form.

I realize that sounds impossible for some people to grasp. Well, I'm here to help.

As it so happens, I know something about corporate law as it applies to churches, so allow me to back up a bit here and give you a quick crash course so you can understand how a government chartered corporation can own a church that no longer even exists. I promise to make it easy to understand.


Corpus Descriptum  
(See, it's getting easier already!)

A corporation is an organization chartered by the state and given many legal rights separate from its owners. You with me so far? Didn't think so.

Okay, think of Frankenstein's monster. No, scratch that. Too evil.

Think of a robot that you and your friends control. It has no brain and no soul, but it can walk around and pick things up; it can do stuff for you. That's a corporation. It can do stuff for you.

Except unlike a robot, a corporation has no actual form. No body. No robot hands or robot feet. So if you can visualize a robot that has no mechanical parts, you're close to mastering the concept. A corporation is an entity. What is an entity? It's a thing. What is a thing? It's an entity.

Welcome to the world of law.

A corporation is an entity that you cannot touch. It is neither inherently good nor inherently evil, but it has a life of its own, and if the batteries are good, that robot can live on after you and your friends are dead and gone. Sometimes that can be a problem. Originally corporations in America were not meant to outlive their creators. Today they do.

One of the biggest problems with a corporation is that under the law, a corporation is actually considered a “person.” That's why it is often defined as a legal fiction. That is, this “person” is legal, but he isn't real. It's a fictional person. It isn't flesh and blood. It has no soul.

And that's the rub. Although it is treated like one, a corporation is not a human being, and usually no real live person within a corporation can be legally held responsible for the harm a corporation might do. The corporation can be fined, but that fine is usually absorbed by the stockholders. The board member's salaries remain sacrosanct.

Indeed, the directors of a corporation can, in a way, transfer their sins to the corporation, which will absorb them without much consequence. In the words of the British Baron Edward Thurlow, the problem with corporations is “they have no soul to save, nor body to incarcerate.”

Most tellingly, a corporation is not something that can stand accountable before God. So if you believe in the doctrine of personal accountability, you can see the crack in the plan right there.

The American colonists were particularly leery of corporations because England's East India Company had in many ways become more powerful than England herself, and was a prime instigator behind England's imperialist ambitions.

When our country was young, there were very few corporations in existence here; when one did appear, it was for the purpose of accomplishing something monumental. Charters were granted for a specific purpose and always for a limited time. The construction of the Erie Canal is one example of the granting of an early American corporation. When the canal was finished being built, the founding corporation expired, as all corporations were meant to.

Corporations certainly weren't the common mode of doing business that they are now. And as far as churches went, incorporation was simply not done, as a corporation derives its existence and all of its power from the state.

Since Jesus Christ is the head of the church, it would be incompatible for a church to petition the government for permission to exist. The church, as Paul taught, is the body of Christ. His laws, principles, and directions. It is not subject to man's laws. No Christian pastor in colonial times would have thought to place his church under political control.
 
As the Supreme Court explained in the case of Hale v. Hinkle:

"A corporation is a creature of the state...It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitation of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and ascertain if it has exceeded its powers" (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43)

"Corporate existence,” according to Roberson's Business Law, “is a privilege granted by the sovereign upon compliance with specified conditions."

So that's a problem for any church that gets a hankering to incorporate, because in the church, Jesus Christ is supposed to be the sovereign. When application is made to incorporate a church, the will of Jesus Christ becomes subordinate to the will of the state. "For a church to become a corporation,” goes the maxim, “in effect divorces the church from Christ.”

All of this incorporating of churches is unnecessary in America anyway, because churches automatically operate in a sphere separate from the state. Governments have no jurisdiction in the church whatsoever. There is no tax advantage for a church to incorporate, as some mistakenly believe. But there is if that “Church” actually wants to operate as a business. Then it can trade its sovereignty in exchange for special privileges granted by the government.

Which is what the President of what used to be the LDS church did in 1923. 
 
How We Waived Our Sovereignty

Back in 1887, the church found itself in a famous staring contest with the federal government, and our side blinked. The United States Congress punished us by dissolving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and seizing all of its assets, including the Salt Lake temple and all of temple square.

Whether the government actually had the authority to do all this is a question for another time, but in 1890 the Supreme Court upheld the dissolution, and the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a legal entity, simply ceased to exist. We had to do a lot of serious butt-kissing just to get our stuff back, but there was no question that the church itself was not returning any time soon. At least not in any form Joseph Smith would have recognized. Or Jesus Christ, for that matter.

Serving God And Mammon

Although a corporation is a person without a soul, corporations do retain at least one characteristic of a real person. Just like you and me, they tend to want to continue to exist. For most corporations, staying alive means bringing in money. Continually.

Which brings us back to Dr. Daymon Smith. For as Smith points out, it wasn't so much polygamy that brought the ire of the nation down upon the heads of the Mormons. That was just the cover story fed to the masses back east to stir up the public, much as the government today keeps the populace in fear of cave-dwelling boogie men in order to justify its adventures overseas and its abrogations here at home.  

Did you really think that President Buchanan would send the United States Army half-way across the desert to stop a handful of hick farmers from sleeping with extra women?

No, the problem with the Mormons, as Daymon Smith reminds us, was “their theocratic control over politics, economics, and resources in the west.” This uppity Mormon empire was becoming a viable threat to the Eastern banking establishment, railroad tycoons, and ambitious politicians.

But you can't send out the army because the Eastern money men don't like competition. So you get the press to stir up the American people against those scary-bad polygamists and before long you have America demanding the army go and put a stop to this barbarism. Let's show those desert-dwelling rubes they can't thumb their noses at Uncle Sam!

The fact is, the Mormon church by the 1880's was becoming an economic force to be reckoned with. Not only was it threatening the Eastern money men, it was also threatening the peace within the church, as members of the Twelve argued constantly among themselves about -you guessed it- money.

The Twelve Apostles were now much too busy to to go forth throughout the world and spread the good news of Christ. They had to stay home and spend all their time managing literally hundreds of church owned businesses. It was virtually impossible by this time to find where the division lay between ecclesiastical and monetary interests. Apparently God himself couldn't help getting in on the action, as He kept coming up with hot investment tips to pass on to his servants. According to historian Michael Quinn:

"In1870 Brigham Young publicly announced a revelation for Mormons to invest in a railroad. In 1881 John Taylor privately dictated a revelation to organize an iron company, and in 1883 another revelation to invest tithing funds in a gold mine. In the 1890's the hierarchy gave certain men the religious 'calling' or obligation to invest thousands of dollars each in a sugar company.”
This focus on the financial over the spiritual was starting to take its toll on the Church. Brigham Young, Jr. felt it had all gone too far. “There is too much time given to Corporations, stocks, bonds, policies, etc. by our leaders to please me,” he wrote in his diary, “We are in all kinds of business interests. Even the members of the Twelve represent businesses which are jealous of each other and almost ready to fight each other.”

How I Love Ya, How I Love Ya, My Dear Old Mammon

After the bust-up of 1890, and after bowing and scraping to their government masters so that they could retain some of their assets, the Church hierarchy eventually made peace with Babylon. As the saying goes, “If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.”

With only a hint of exaggeration, Daymon Smith cheekily summarizes the situation:
"No longer members of any legally recognized religion, Mormons organized a focus group to re-brand their identity. So they called around to some California railroad lobbyists, New York ad-men, and brainstormed and out-paradigm-shifted a totally innovational re-branding of Mormonism.”
"The Trustee thus offered bonds to Eastern bankers with the promised collateral being the Mormons themselves."
The Mormon people, you see, had untapped value: a sense of community, a uniquely productive work ethic, and best of all, a built-in propensity to be obedient to authorities.
These Mormons were made to order. The Mormon leaders offered up the future tithes of the Mormon people as guarantees against their investments. The members of what used to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be unwitting cash cows for the benefit of their leaders. And the leaders of what used to be that church were now climbing into bed with the whore of Babylon.

Catholic Pope, Meet The Mormon Pope

Some time around 1900, the office of Trustee-in-Trust was reformed, then a few years later the financial interests of the "Church" were protected under the “Corporation of the Presiding Bishop.” Finally in 1923, church lawyers found The Holy Grail: a rare, little known, and hardly ever used mode of incorporation known as The Corporation Sole.

Virtually unknown in America, and tracing its origins to ancient Roman law, the corporation sole was the way the vast riches of the Holy Catholic Church had been protected under Emperor Constantine. All financial power was vested in one man -in their case the pope, in our case, the prophet.

Or, as he was named in the corporate charter, “the President.” The word “Prophet” doesn't appear in the charter. This wasn't a real church, after all. It was just a way for the leadership of the, ahem, "Church” (wink, wink) to control the member's money.

In the original LDS church from the time of Joseph Smith, all members were considered of equal worth. They were called “members” because in the ancient church the scriptures called them “members of the body of Christ.” All parts were of equal importance to the Lord. You know the words of Paul in 1st Corinthians 12: “The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you.”

Likewise church property bought with member's tithing was considered held in common by all the members of the church, with common consent required for the purchase or disbursement of that common property.

But not anymore. Under the corporation sole, the head could tell the feet to go take a hike. The president of the church could do whatever the hell he wanted with the member's money without asking permission from the members whatsoever. It's spelled out right there in the charter. The president of the corporation needs no authorization from any mere member of the Lord's church. No show of hands, no vote, no “all in favor please manifest.” Like the Pope, his power is absolute. He is the Sole Brother.

Also written into the charter of the Corporation of the President as amended was how the line of succession was to operate within the Church. In order for there to be no question as to who held the purse strings following the death of the president (the “Sole” in a ”Sole Corporation”), the Senior Apostle automatically becomes the next president of the Corporation.

You thought somehow God maneuvered certain chosen men into these callings over the years so that they would one day be at the head of the line at the exact moment when God was ready to call them as the next prophet? You are so naïve.

The line of succession is outlined in the state approved charter. God's will isn't mentioned anywhere in it.

Systemic Within The Body

Now, I don't want to leave you with the impression that I see the general authorities of the Church as a group of sinister businessmen gleefully rubbing their hands together plotting their next takeover.

Far from it. I believe those men take very seriously their commitment to doing good works. They try very hard to be worthy of their responsibilities, and I'm positive they pray for guidance daily. With the obvious exception of Boyd K. Packer, none of these men is inherently evil. On the contrary, most of them are exceptionally good and fine men.

As Paul James Toscano has said, individually the general authorities of the Church are fine and wonderful people. “The problem,” he says, “is that when they get together, they act like a corporation.”

Exactly. It's not so much the people within the system, it is the system itself. This Church is a corporation. It is chartered as a corporation, and it behaves like a corporation. Before they were called to their positions of leadership within the Church, most of these men made their livings as lawyers and businessmen in the corporate world. Not in the last hundred years can I think of an actual theologian who has been invited to join their ranks. They are in these positions because the talents and skills they developed on the outside are needed on the inside.

When each of them came aboard to serve in this corporation, even though they believe it is ecclesiastical in nature, they soon learned that things are run here very much the way things were run in the corporate world they left.

Thus, the areas that the corporate Church tends to focus on are, by and large, the same things any corporation lends its attention to: Growth, Image, and Control.

Especially damage control to its image. Notice that in the early LDS church, the spokesman for the church was called a Prophet. Today the press is continually quoting a “church spokesman” who turns out to be someone from the Public Relations Department.

That is how a corporation works. It is not what we expect from a church that claims Jesus Christ as its head. If Jesus Christ was still the head of this church, He would have his spokesman speak for His church, not some flunky from the PR department whose job it is to act as a buffer to protect the prophet from embarrassment. 
 
You can hear several hours of interviews with Daymon Smith over at Mormon Stories Podcasts where he discusses the history of correlation, how the corporate ChurchTM struggles to serve both God and Mammon, and more on the transformation from church of Christ to corporate hybrid.

You can find his doctoral dissertation here, and over at By Common Consent there is a nine part discussion with Smith on the history of correlation that starts here.

I can't stress the importance of these materials strongly enough. If you lack a knowledge of the changes wrought in the church through correlation and corporate influence, your understanding of Mormon history in the twentieth century is woefully incomplete and innacurate. It's as simple as that.
 
PostScript

I wanted to include the following information in the essay above, but the piece was already so long I didn't have the heart to put you readers through a longer stretch.

But I did not want to leave unanswered the question some may have of how a church ostensibly guided by Jesus Christ himself could have been dissolved by a government entity. What possible claim of jurisdiction could the government have over any independent church?

Where it may be argued that the federal government might have had the right to seize church property since that property was situated on federal lands (until Utah became a state, it did not have autonomy separate from federal authority), that theory of law certainly does not extend to the dissolution of a sovereign church of Christ.

The answer is that the church hadn't been sovereign since 1829. Although the restored church existed prior to April 6th, 1830 (There were three branches and over seventy baptized members prior to that time), it was on that date that Joseph Smith unwittingly petitioned the state of New York for permission to form a church under the laws of New York State. Clearly he did not understand what he was doing; it's likely that he saw this action as akin to an announcement that a new denomination was hereby established. But what the government giveth, the government taketh away, and any act of incorporation takes a church out of the jurisdiction of God and places it smack dab into the backyard of Babylon. And Babylon does what it wishes.

Here is an excerpt from David Whitmer's account at the inception:
In this month (June 1829) I was baptized, confirmed, and ordained an Elder in the Church of Christ by Bro. Joseph Smith. Previous to this, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had baptized, confirmed and ordained each other to the office of an Elder in the Church of Christ. I was the third person baptized into the church. In August, 1829, we began to preach the gospel of Christ. The following six Elders had then been ordained: Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Samuel H. Smith, Hyrum Smith and myself. The Book of Mormon was still in the hands of the printer, but my brother, Christian Whitmer, had copied from the manuscript the teachings and doctrine of Christ, being the things which we were commanded to preach. We preached, baptized and confirmed members into the Church of Christ, from August, 1829, until April 6th, 1830, being eight months in which time we had proceeded rightly; the offices in the church being Elders, Priests and Teachers.
Now, when April 6, 1830, had come, we had then established three branches of the “Church of Christ,” in which three branches were about seventy members: One branch was at Fayette, N. Y.; one at Manchester, N. Y., and one at Colesville, Pa. It is all a mistake about the church being organized on April 6, 1830, as I will show. We were as fully organized–spiritually–before April 6th as we were on that day. The reason why we met on that day was this; the world had been telling us that we were not a regularly organized church, and we had no right to officiate in the ordinance of marriage, hold church property, etc., and that we should organize according to the laws of the land. On this account we met at my father’s house in Fayette, N. Y., on April 6, 1830, to attend to this matter of organizing according to the laws of the land; you can see this from Sec. 17 Doctrine and Convenants: the church was organized on April 6th “agreeable to the laws of our country.” (An Address to All Believers in Christ, pg 32-34)
 Indeed, the Lord defined His church in D&C 10:67, showing that it was already in existence at least since 1828. There was no need to “organize” something that was already extant. Joseph's act of registering with the state was a slow poison that proved fatal to his creation sixty years later.

And if you haven't already figured it out, no government actually has the power to dissolve the Church of Christ. All they did was kill a corporate version of it. The true Church of Christ is present “where two or three are are gathered together” in his name (Matt 18:20), and “whosoever repenteth and come unto me, the same is my church.” (D&C 10:67)

 



TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: inman; lds; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
Author Alan Rock Waterman

Carmichael, California

"I've had a lifelong interest in what the early Latter-day Saints understood to be the "pure theology" of The Restoration, unfiltered by many of the common assumptions prevalent among a majority of modern Mormons today.

In Joseph Smith's time, a teaching was accepted as valid only if obtained through divine revelation from God. Today, much of what passes for doctrine among my fellow Saints appears to contain "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture."

I've been further intrigued by warnings of the falling away of the latter-day saints in our day as foretold in the Book of Mormon, and this blog was created as a forum for discussing some of the possible signs of that prophesied derailment."

1 posted on 11/30/2010 9:14:11 AM PST by greyfoxx39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Disclaimer: I am former LDS and "anti" mormonism. I post articles from official mormon sources among others, that often relate to current discussions taking place on the forum to provide a means for open discussion in the Religion forum.
 
FROM THE RELIGION FORUM MODERATOR:

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.

On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

 Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.

 

2 posted on 11/30/2010 9:15:00 AM PST by greyfoxx39 ("People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry; Colofornian; Elsie; FastCoyote; svcw; Zakeet; SkyPilot; rightazrain; ...

Ping


3 posted on 11/30/2010 9:17:43 AM PST by greyfoxx39 ("People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Wow


4 posted on 11/30/2010 9:22:30 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Vanishing lds Church......? No way, we read on FR nearly daily how lds is the fastest growing church group in the history of the universe. I mean just ten years ago there were 60K missionaries and now there are 52K. Ok, that's not a good example. But hey, they are building malls, and buildings all over the world and gathering members at a rate of 1% a year 2010 and just 20 years ago it was at a rate of growth of 2% a year. Humm that's not a good example either. Wait I got it, the over all growth rate has been 1.5% average over the last 25 years, with only 1.4% of that being babies born into lds. Ok thats better at least its growth.
5 posted on 11/30/2010 9:24:45 AM PST by svcw (If you put a crouton on a your sundae instead of a cherry, it counts as a salad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Google has been the dagger to the Church/Corporation’s heart. People are leaving out the back door of the church by the tens of thousands.

The church will exist in some form for some time, but its best days are in the past. Its decline over the next 25 years will be epic.


6 posted on 11/30/2010 9:27:28 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
What we think of as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, says Smith, operates today as a mere trademark of the corporation that owns the name to it. The actual church that used to go by that name, and which claims Jesus Christ as its head, does not exist today in any legally recognized form.

This should be an interesting thread. Ping to read later.

7 posted on 11/30/2010 9:30:21 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Sounds like the “restored church” needs restoration...

It just gets better and better...

8 posted on 11/30/2010 9:33:56 AM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

I found the subject to be interesting enough to merit reading the article. I got about three screen pages down, then scrolled the rest to see how long it was going to be. I really wanted to read more, but couldn’t.

I find it very difficult to read anything more than 6 paragraphs long where the author bolds, italicizes, increases the font size, indents and otherwise frequently emphasizes different parts of the text which the author somehow thinks are more important than the rest.

If the subject is interesting, the formatting changes are unnecessary. I would prefer a little more brevity and some conistency in the formatting. All of the format changes are distracting and frustrating. It takes away from the credibility of the author, and makes him look like a kook.

If emphasis is needed, it should be applied to passages that are truly revelatory, and sparingly.


9 posted on 11/30/2010 9:55:40 AM PST by webheart (Just saying.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
For a different take on church incorporation, I recommend Baptist Legal Update: Should Churches Be Incorporated?
10 posted on 11/30/2010 9:59:03 AM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webheart
Feel free to click the link at the beginning of the thread the leads to the original article entitled "Pure Mormoniam" for less "editorial comment" by the OP.

In my experience, many readers will skim longer articles. I emphasize accordingly.

11 posted on 11/30/2010 10:06:33 AM PST by greyfoxx39 ("People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lurk
The church will exist in some form for some time, but its best days are in the past. Its decline over the next 25 years will be epic.

The changes I have seen since I left mormonism many years ago are quite stunning.

12 posted on 11/30/2010 10:11:46 AM PST by greyfoxx39 ("People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

I think predictions of the collapse of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is more wishful thinking than anything else.

My view from the inside is I don’t see signs of atrophy or withering away. I see a lot of strength, unity, conviction and love. Yes, there are problems and challenges, but that’s to be expected.

I see a bright future.

Normandy


13 posted on 11/30/2010 10:13:39 AM PST by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
I see a bright future.

Your vision, your choice. This article is about the way the original mormon church has become a corporation. Did you bother to read it?

14 posted on 11/30/2010 10:19:30 AM PST by greyfoxx39 ("People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; Logophile; Normandy; All
From the article: Also written into the charter of the Corporation of the President as amended was how the line of succession was to operate within the Church. In order for there to be no question as to who held the purse strings following the death of the president (the “Sole” in a ”Sole Corporation”), the Senior Apostle automatically becomes the next president of the Corporation. You thought somehow God maneuvered certain chosen men into these callings over the years so that they would one day be at the head of the line at the exact moment when God was ready to call them as the next prophet? You are so naïve.

Lds, Inc.
With a charter (not God)
which (not WHO) determines who the next "prophet" will be...

Yeah. I could just imagine it. God establishes a "corporate sole" charter where Elisha takes over for Elijah...except that they were actually "co-prophets" for about a decade...imagine that...

Or God "charters" Hosea and his prostitute wife to "take over" the prophet mantle from Amos...except that they were "co-prophets" for about a decade...hmm...imagine that...

Or God "charters Micah to assume the prophet mantle from Isaiah...except that they were contemporary "co-prophets" for about half-a-century...hmm...imagine that...

Or God "charters" Habbakuk to relieve Zephaniah as prophet"...except that Zephaniah, Habakkuk and Jeremiah were contemporary for almost 20 years -- and Jeremiah & Nahum likewise for over a decade...

[And Samuel and Nathan were simultaneous prophets for about 50 years...and 1 Kings mentions 100 true prophets alive at the same time!)

Just goes to show that the Mormon church isn't a "restoration" of ANYTHING biblical. Lds Inc. has foisted an outright lie upon their people -- and have told them to "cough up" 10% to the corporate coffers.

Despite Hebrews 1:1-2, Mormons have been told that Jesus can't speak directly to His Church on earth...even though the writer of Hebrews clearly says that in the past God spoke through prophets...now He speaks through His Son, the Living Revelation of God!

Why has Lds Inc. bumped Jesus Christ out of the picture as the Church's one Living Prophet?
Why has Lds Inc. silenced Him?
Can He not speak directly any more?

I mean it's downright hypocritical for the Lds Church to insist that God only gives one "prophet" to the church, and then to systematically exclude mention of Jesus Christ as continuing to be THAT SINGLE Living Prophet...meaning...that the Lds church has replaced Him!

Even though MANY of the Old Testament prophets were contemporaries of each other (God speaking through more than one prophet at a time), Lds Inc. "told" God that He can't do that any more -- they have shut the mouths of God speaking through more than a single prophet.. and what's worse, unlike what Heb. 1:1-2 clearly says -- that Jesus is our everlasting "prophetic" voice we hear (see John 10)...Mormons say "no" -- we've shut up Jesus' voice as well...and we ONLY hear in a church body where "ONLY here is the Lord’s prophet."

15 posted on 11/30/2010 10:55:26 AM PST by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; All; Logophile; Normandy
From the article: The Mormon people, you see, had untapped value: a sense of community, a uniquely productive work ethic, and best of all, a built-in propensity to be obedient to authorities. These Mormons were made to order. The Mormon leaders offered up the future tithes of the Mormon people as guarantees against their investments. The members of what used to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be unwitting cash cows for the benefit of their leaders. And the leaders of what used to be that church were now climbing into bed with the whore of Babylon.

"Unwitting cash cows?" Unwitting bank account feeder dupes.

Gullibles.

(Give us 10% of your income & that's your temple ticket. Your temple ticket is your freeway to godhood.)

Q What god would attach a ticket voucher you have to pay for to live with him forever?

A Only the Mormon god!

You see, Mormons essentially say that well over 99.x% of people who've ever lived and are living will live with Father-God forever. (That's reserved for married temple Mormons who jump through all the rest of perfectionist, legalistic, ritualistic Mormon hoops!!)

Other Mormons need not apply.

Singles need not apply.

Non Mormons need not apply.

If you want a new "god job" Lds Inc. is assigning to colonies around the universe, you need to become a member in the infamous White Boys Club of Lds, Inc. (Oh, well, they started accepting black members 32 years ago -- when Mitt Romney was a tithing temple Mormon at age 30...but guess what % of their membership is black?)

16 posted on 11/30/2010 11:04:06 AM PST by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webheart; greyfoxx39
Here's the gist of the article, which draws heavily on the writings of Daymon Smith, "Mormon antropologist":
17 posted on 11/30/2010 11:08:00 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; All

Another fantasy thread by the anti-Mormon activist gang on FR. /yawn


18 posted on 11/30/2010 11:17:25 AM PST by Paragon Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Boyd K. Packer, the current LDS President/Prophet, is "obviously" "inherently evil".

Monson is still Prez...Packer, I think is next in line but I'm not sure.

19 posted on 11/30/2010 11:18:15 AM PST by greyfoxx39 ("People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lurk

“Its decline over the next 25 years will be epic.”

Doubt that. The Church is experiencing a revival if anything. It is exciting, fulfilling, and wonderful to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have been a Baptist, for a short time a Catholic, a pentecostal/evangelical, but I have never been so full of joy and awe. The Holy Ghost is real. Heavenly Father is real. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, is real. The Church is real.

The anti Mormons can go on their merry way spreading these horrible threads but it mattereth not.


20 posted on 11/30/2010 11:51:41 AM PST by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

I don’t see any problem with the LDS church being incorporated. Yes, it’s a legal structure set up the laws of man, but the Church operates in the secular environment and has to deal with the laws of the lands in which it is organized. That doesn’t in my mind invalidate in any way its divine mandate.


21 posted on 11/30/2010 11:56:30 AM PST by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

We sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as “prophets seers and revelators”. So there are 15 right now who are ministering simultaneously.


22 posted on 11/30/2010 12:01:01 PM PST by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
I don’t see any problem with the LDS church being incorporated.

Perhaps you should reconsider

23 posted on 11/30/2010 12:41:50 PM PST by greyfoxx39 ("People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; restornu
Should we ping Resty, since she likes to use the following clause so often to insult the Inmans?... "Today, much of what passes for doctrine among my fellow Saints appears to contain "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture."
24 posted on 11/30/2010 12:51:12 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Normandy

The church in Jerusalem as well as the one alledged to be in America had 12 apostles.

If the church is true, what are the three most significant prophecies Monson has made?


25 posted on 11/30/2010 1:01:43 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

Come now! You know those are secrets only the initiates are allowed to hear ... just other mystery religions.


26 posted on 11/30/2010 1:23:01 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Normandy

Well I would hope that you would.


27 posted on 11/30/2010 2:26:53 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; Normandy
We sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as “prophets seers and revelators”. So there are 15 right now who are ministering simultaneously. [Normandy]

NONE of whom have spoken as a Scripture-producing "prophet," right?

When's the last time one of your "apostles" or "First Presidency" counselors ever spoken as a "prophet" in having his words canonized as "Scripture?"

The church in Jerusalem as well as the one alledged to be in America had 12 apostles. [Godzilla]

So the Lds church has a "prophet" + 12 "apostles" and 2 "First President counselors." 15 total

During the supposed "American" rounds of Jesus in the Book of Mormon, the supposed "church of Jesus Christ" had Jesus + 23-24 "apostles" -- 24-25 after Saul converted to Paul -- and no "First President Counselors." 25-26 total

Who authorized the reduction, Normandy?

If the Lds church is supposed to be a "restoration" of the original church, who ordered those sustained to be permanently removed from the Middle East? Or South or Central America?

What's the "magical" number about "15" within a Quorum? Why not 16? Or 13?

Where is Jesus Christ on the hierarchy? Why has He been removed from His Hebrews 1:1-2 post?

Where's the apostle John? (Isn't He still alive, per the D&C?)

Who authorized him to be cut from the Mormon apostle list? When was that done? Did Mormonism's leaders have the supposed "authority" to do that?

Or is it that Joseph Smith lied? And that the apostle John's life has been transferred to heaven -- and he's no longer here?

28 posted on 11/30/2010 3:28:31 PM PST by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

We sustain all the Apostles (First Presidency and Quorum of the 12) as prophets, seers, and revelators, and we believe they can and do reveal the will of the Lord to the people of earth. Just because the things that they say are not included in our books of scripture, doesn’t mean they are not speaking the will of God.

The majority of the words of Christ and the early Apostles never made it into the Bible.

For the record there is no “magic number”. We have had presidents of the church who have had more than two counselors.

As for John the Revelator, I am sure he is still an Apostle, fulfilling a unique mission for God.


29 posted on 11/30/2010 3:42:03 PM PST by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: webheart

A simple solution:

Cut the article, paste it in a word procesor, and make all the text the same.

Takes way less than 30 seconds to do.


30 posted on 11/30/2010 3:56:59 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
We sustain all the Apostles (First Presidency and Quorum of the 12) as prophets, seers, and revelators, and we believe they can and do reveal the will of the Lord to the people of earth. Just because the things that they say are not included in our books of scripture, doesn’t mean they are not speaking the will of God.

Norm, I understand what you're saying...I've had Mormons say to me, "You don't understand. Even what the prophet and apostles say at a General Conference is revealing God's will."

Here's the "rub," Normandy: Surely, you've seen us cite Lds past "apostles" and "prophets" left and right...some of it in the Journal of Discourses. Some of it stated at General Conferences (many of the references of the Mormon "White Horse prophesy," for example, was mentioned in 20th century General Conferences between WWI and the early 1960s).

Numerous times when we've cited those phrases, we get Mormons left and right poo-pooing those earlier comments from their leads as not worthy of respect, let alone deemed "the will of the Lord."

We're still waiting for Mormons to stop trying to have their cake & eat it, too...It seems whenever a contemporary sustained general authority says something at a General Conference, it's the "Lord's will." But if a General Authority has a tombstone with his name on it, it's...
"Suspect"
--Not "the Lord's will"
-- "We don't believe that (anymore)"
-- etc.

There's absolutely ZILCHO consistency on the part of Lds FReepers on this.

31 posted on 11/30/2010 3:57:46 PM PST by Colofornian ("So how do LDS deal with the [Adam-God] phenomenon? WE DON'T; WE SIMPLY SET IT ASIDE" - BYU prof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Normandy

The light at the end of the tunnel just likely is a TRAIN!

Get off at the next stop!


32 posted on 11/30/2010 3:58:59 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paragon Defender

Another fantasy thread by the anti-Mormon activist gang on FR. /yawn


 
 
HI!
 
 My screen name is Paragon Defender; but you can call me PD (if you are SINCERE, that is.)
 
I provide TRUTH to ALL who would care to seek it (if they are REALLY sincere) and I do it OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER  again.

I am pleased to offer my services for the Betterment of Mankind.

Please feel free to ask me ANYTHING and I'll sincerely post my link list again.

Remember...

I am normal too; and I am a MORMON!

 

Sincerely,

PD


 
 

33 posted on 11/30/2010 4:01:06 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Monson is still Prez...Packer, I think is next in line but I'm not sure.

Read the corporation charter; as it tells how the line of succession is going to work.

34 posted on 11/30/2010 4:02:19 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
The anti Mormons can go on their merry way spreading these horrible threads but it mattereth not.

Horrible?

Yes; to a MORMON.

But not untrue; is it dear?

35 posted on 11/30/2010 4:03:27 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
... but the Church operates in the secular environment ...

That it surely does!

36 posted on 11/30/2010 4:04:16 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
That doesn’t in my mind invalidate in any way its divine mandate.

The 'church' got a MANDATE from GOD in D&C 132 to adhere to the ETERNAL COVENANT of polygamy; but the 'church' is afraid of the GOVERNMENT that allows it to exist; so it threw it's GOD under the bus for the sake of keeping it's material things.

The leaders of this 'church' are spineless cowards.

37 posted on 11/30/2010 4:07:02 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
So there are 15 right now who are ministering simultaneously.

Bull!

They ain't 'ministering' nuttin'!

They are BUSINESSmen: that's all!

38 posted on 11/30/2010 4:08:29 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

bttt


39 posted on 12/01/2010 4:11:38 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Thanks for the interesting link.

He sounds like a pretty determined individual.....


40 posted on 12/02/2010 11:11:41 AM PST by yellowroses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrreaganaut

Legal ping. Input?


41 posted on 12/02/2010 1:39:35 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
"I see a bright future."

Apparently, so did your Corporate President; the thing is, though, that only those on the upper levels of the Multi-Level Marketing scheme make the big bucks. Downline shmucks have blind faith in making it big, but there's a big difference between seeing a bright future and having one.

42 posted on 12/02/2010 3:00:07 PM PST by mrreaganaut (There’s only one solution to the problem of government incompetence, and that’s more government. /)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

It is an interesting perspective. I assume that the author belongs to one of the “fundamentalist” Mormon sects. Legally, he seems to be claiming that churches ought not be recognized by the state as legal entities; however, it’s more of a theological claim than a legal one. Church buildings and graveyards must belong to someone or something for property tax purposes, for example. I suppose that individual members could keep title rather than gifting land to an under-the-radar church, but most people in America like the stability of the Congregational/corporate model. Whether those people are theologically correct is not a legal question.


43 posted on 12/02/2010 3:49:40 PM PST by mrreaganaut (See the wild curelom herds at Zion National Park!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mrreaganaut

“I assume that the author belongs to one of the ‘fundamentalist’ Mormon sects.”

Sheesh! Doesn’t anybody click on the original post anymore?

I’m the writer of the piece under discussion, and aligned with mainstream LDS. You’ll find, however, that I am not in thrall to the Brethren nor their constant bleating for obeisance.

Webheart, I emphasize with your frustration regarding all the italicizing, bolding, and increasing of the font size of my article. Although I understand Greyfox’s motivation for emphasizing certain points (and I appreciate him for reposting it!), those emphases are his, not mine. So Elsie, no need to put my words back into a word processor and straighten them all out again. You’ll find my post in it’s original form quite readable here, complete with a snappy portrait of Jesus as the Corporate Man:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html

Also, note that Greyfox did not post the entire article; in fact, my piece wasn’t called “The Vanishing LDS Church.” That was just a subtitle of one section. The full piece is titled “How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ.”

In there I have already addressed Mr. Reaganaut’s concerns about how a church can function absent corporation.

The very question is evidence of how thoroughly Americans have come to accept the premise that no business can function without being incorporated. Prior to the 20th century romance for such status, people did just fine as regular businesses, sole proprietors, partnerships, or simply companies.

Many churches today have come to the realization that they have been conned into thinking incorporation was necessary, and there is a rush now to dis-incorporate. You might want to ask those churches how they manage to pay their employees and engage in commerce with suppliers. They are able to do so because they operate as a church, an independent entity that does not seek permission from the State for its existence. They seem to be functioning just fine, as churches always did before America went corporate crazy a hundred years ago.

I would remind Mr. Reaganaut by the way, that churches don’t pay property taxes. At least those not subject to Caesar.

You can’t claim Christ as the head of your church if you have to first petition the State for permission to exist.


44 posted on 01/15/2011 10:57:32 AM PST by Rockwaterman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rockwaterman; Elsie; webheart; greyfoxx39

Courtesy ping to FReepers mentioned in your reply, that weren’t pinged.

Btw, thanks for bumping the thread...


45 posted on 01/15/2011 11:06:00 AM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Rockwaterman

I’m sorry, I clicked on the link to the book at Amazon. I apologize for assuming by the harshness of your (apparently excerpted) article that you were not mainstream LDS. I do agree that incorporation is immaterial to the purposes of the Church.


46 posted on 01/15/2011 3:27:00 PM PST by mrreaganaut (See the Gadianton Robbers' Hideout at Zion National Park!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Rockwaterman; SZonian; mrreaganaut
Welcome to FR, Mr. Waterman.

As you stated in your article, "I wanted to include the following information in the essay above, but the piece was already so long I didn't have the heart to put you readers through a longer stretch."......the excerpt I DID post is quite long, thus the emphasis on certain points. As I explained, a lot of readers are inclined to see a long post and rather than wade through it, will move on. I feel that the information you have made available is of interest to the readers of the mormon threads.

As to the "meat" of the article, I pull this quote from you...You can’t claim Christ as the head of your church if you have to first petition the State for permission to exist.

I'm sure I am speaking for many when I change it just a little.."You can’t claim Christ as the head of your church if you have to first petition the State for permission to exist answer to a leadership consisting of businessmen and attorneys and a "prophet" who requires a "sustaining vote".

Council on the Disposition of the Tithes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Council on the Disposition of the Tithes (also known as the Council on the Disposition of Tithing) is a leadership body in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, composed of the First Presidency, the Presiding Bishopric, and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The Council determines how the tithing funds of the church will be spent. The Council oversees revenue, investments and expenditures valued at billions of dollars per year.

While the Church employs an independent auditing department which provides an annual report to the Church[1], it has not published full financial reports since 1959.

The Council was established by church founder Joseph Smith, Jr. on 8 July 1838.[2] As of April 2009, the members of the Council are:

I invite you to stick around and join in the discussion here. We welcome new voices to the debate.

47 posted on 01/15/2011 5:20:36 PM PST by greyfoxx39 ("Journalists" see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our "political discourse.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

48 posted on 01/15/2011 7:25:10 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
For a different take on church incorporation, I recommend Baptist Legal Update: Should Churches Be Incorporated?

It ain't vanishing as much as it is fragmenting...


 
 

Today, there are as many as 100 organizations claiming to be a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, most centered in Utah or Missouri. Most regard their own group, however small, to be the only legitimate Christian church. Most of these organizations are very small, but overall, but the second largest denomination, the Community of Christ, reports over 200,000 members.


49 posted on 01/15/2011 7:27:47 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
I see a lot of strength, unity, conviction and love.

Yup; I'll go along with that conviction thing.

We see them being CONVICTED and sent to jail for white collar crime at a rate that is disporportionate for their numbers.

50 posted on 01/15/2011 7:29:34 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson