"We believe that this was His object in creating the Republic of the United States; the only land where his work could be commenced or the feet of his people find rest. No other land had such liberal institutions, had adopted so broad a platform upon which all men might stand." Bishop Orson F. Whitney
“Many an academic giant is at once a spiritual pygmy and, if so, he is usually a moral weakling as well. Such a man may easily become a self-appointed member of a wrecking crew determined to destroy the works of God.
“Beware of the testimony of one who is intemperate, or irreverent, or immoral, who tears down and has nothing to put in its place.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1974, p. 138; or Ensign, May 1974, p. 95.)
Progressives tend to think of the world as a sort of blank slate that is meaningless in itself. On that view man becomes the creator of values, society becomes a system set up to bring about whatever goals people want it to serve, and it seems most sensible to design the system to help people attain whatever purposes they have, without playing favorites or interfering more than necessary with what they want to do…
Traditionalists view society and morality as natural rather than constructed. Since man is naturally social, society and morality are necessary to the world he inhabits and needed to make him what he truly is. That world is considered good in itself as well as productive of good, and to act socially and morally is to realize one’s own nature by participating in it. So the loyalty and authority that create a social world and make us part of it are natural to man and necessary for a good life.” Source
Is BYU getting too liberal? Here’s why some, amazingly, say it is.
By Peggy Fletcher Stack March 2021, SL Tribune
“There is “a wave of faculty” hired who “really do view the restored gospel as their secondary allegiance.” And that, he says, is a problem for a school trying to educate while building faith.
They come to BYU, where there are “quite a few faculty and students who do not believe in the principles in the proclamation on the family,” Ellsworth says. “Instead of having those views challenged and having the proclamation being articulated and explained and defended, they are having views contrary to the proclamation affirmed on campus…
Graduating senior Sam Crofts has definitely seen the school shift toward being “too liberal.”
In his major, political science, Crofts says, “I don’t know that I have had a single conservative professor, and that wasn’t my expectation coming to BYU.”
The Pleasant Grove resident wished there could be “a little more diversity of thought among the faculty. It is valuable for any educational experience to avoid the echo chamber.” Source
President Harold B. Lee,
Cautioned that some people may not follow the line of authority in the Church:
“We call upon you holders of the priesthood to stamp out any such [false doctrines] and to set to flight all such things as are creeping in, people rising up here and there who have had some ‘marvelous’ kind of a manifestation, as they claim, and who try to lead the people in a course that has not been dictated from the heads of the Church.
Joseph Smith wrote: “The great difficulty lies in the ignorance of the nature of spirits, of the laws by which they are governed, and the signs by which they may be known; if it requires the Spirit of God to know the things of God; and the spirit of the devil can only be unmasked through that medium, then it follows as a natural consequence that unless some person or persons have a communication, or revelation from God, unfolding to them the operation of the spirit, they must eternally remain ignorant of these principles. … Whatever we may think of revelation, … without it we can neither know nor understand anything of God, or the devil.” (History of the Church, 4:573–74.)
Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose wrote in 1913 about those who make false claims or declare erroneous doctrines:
“When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or any extraordinary gift or inspiration conveys something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. Also they should understand that directions for the guidance of the Church will come, by revelation, through the head. All faithful members are entitled to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for themselves, their families, and for those over whom they are appointed and ordained to preside. But anything at discord with that which comes from God through the head of the Church is not to be received as authoritative or reliable. In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others, and is not to be accepted when contrary to Church covenants, doctrine or discipline, or to known facts, proven truths, or good common sense. No person has the right to induce his fellow members of the Church to engage in speculations or take stock in ventures of any kind on the specious claim of Divine revelation or vision or dream, especially when it is in opposition to the voice of recognized authority, local or general. The Lord’s Church ‘is a house of order.’ It is not governed by individual gifts or manifestations, but by the order and power of the Holy Priesthood as sustained by the voice and vote of the Church in its appointed conferences.
“The history of the Church records many pretended revelations claimed by imposters or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, and in every instance, disappointment, sorrow and disaster have resulted therefrom. Financial loss and sometimes utter ruin have followed. …
“Be not led by any spirit or influence that discredits established authority, contradicts true scientific principles and discoveries, or leads away from the direct revelations of God for the government of the Church. The Holy Ghost does not contradict its own revealings. Truth is always harmonious with itself. Piety is often the cloak of error. The counsels of the Lord through the channel he has appointed will be followed with safety. Therefore, O! ye Latter-day Saints, profit by these words of warning.” (In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:285–86.) Source of most quotes here
Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
“In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote an entertaining classic on grassroots organizing titled Rules for Radicals. Those who prefer cooperative tactics describe the book as out-of-date. Nevertheless, it provides some of the best advice on confrontational tactics. Alinsky begins this way: What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. His “rules” derive from many successful campaigns where he helped poor people fighting power and privilege…
According to Alinsky, the organizer, especially a paid organizer from outside, must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.” Source
Does this sound like a Traditionalist or a Progressive? This book by Saul Alinsky has been the guide book for years for political, influential, and progressive people on how to turn over a village, city, or county one step at a time into a radical and progressive place. It isn’t hard for you to google this book, to find out which prominent politicians acknowledge it is a wonderful influence in their lives.
In fact do you know who this evil book was written for and dedicated to by the author? Lucifer
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” — SAUL ALINSKY
As you read this manifesto above, does it sound like many countries of the world today including our own United States of America? In my opinion, yes. Unless we stick to the Traditions (Traditionalist) and values of the Lord Jesus Christ through His gospel, His scriptures, and His Prophets, we cannot achieve peace in this world and our goal to live with the Savior again will not be achieved.
‘Mormon Land’
By Peggy Fletcher Stack and David Noyce Nov. 10, 2021 SL Tribune
Anti Mormon Movie by Phil Davis
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers itself the “restoration” of a complete Christianity that was lost centuries ago after the death of the biblical apostles.
Several years ago, Denver Snuffer, a former Latter-day Saint, launched his Remnant movement, preaching that the Utah-based faith fell away from the truth after founder Joseph Smith was killed in 1844 and Brigham Young led his followers West.
Now, yet another faction, called The Doctrine of Christ, has emerged. Phil Davis, a Latter-day Saint in Provo, asserts that Young murdered Smith and that Mormonism’s first prophet recently returned to re-restore the church with Davis at its helm.” Source
Please tell your friends and family to not support a trash film like this.
Korihor is Alive
“And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.” Alma 30:12-16
“Korihor is alive and well at Mormon Stories Podcast. It seems that modern-day apostasy has found a new home at a well funded website dubbed “Mormon Stories Podcast.” As Hugh Nibley once said, if you want to write an anti-Mormon book, just get an old one, dust it off and take a bit of a different slant and republish it under a new name. Now hiding in plain site, the website pretends to be faith-affirming, but then all of the old charges that the Book of Abraham was a ruse or that Joseph Smith dabbled in the occult surface without even an effort to show both sides of an argument. Several of our guests on LATTER DAY RADIO answered all those phony charges as did our host, Martin Tanner, but the website ignores all that. Yes, Korihor is alive and well and now has a website. The ironic thing is that it is a fulfillment of prophecy that “calumny will defame…” But, we know how it ends. In the meantime, “Mormon Stories” continues its deception after the order of Korihor. And, it is well funded. Unfortunately, money talks.” Greg Jerrod
Mormon Stories is WRONG. They are selling you you a bill of goods. This gospel is true and you need to follow President Russell M. Nelson who speaks for the Lord Jesus Christ!
A ridiculous billboard selling anti-Mormon ideas
How do you answer the voice of critics? Are you a conservative or liberal? Are you a traditionalist or a progressive? Do you love the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you constantly seek to change it’s history? Is your testimony of the Lord growing or remaining neutral? Are you green and growing or ripe and rotten? Do you need to get a check up from the neck up to get rid of stinkin’ thinkin’? Remember, if you do what you’ve always done, you will get what you’ve always got! I know if you read and pray to the Lord for help, He will answer you. don’t get caught up in all this negative revisionist history. Stick to the Lord’s word in scripture and prayer!
From the Book “FAITH CRISIS, VOLUME 1: WE WERE NOT BETRAYED!” by James and Hannah Stoddard
“The essential difference separating traditionalists and progressives—and dividing traditional history from New Mormon History—is revelation from God. For traditionalists, the revelations in the scriptures, and those received by Joseph Smith, represent pure revelation from God. The Book of Mormon is one such revelation, as are the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham. Furthermore, many of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s teachings constitute revelation from God.
The progressive places God’s revelations on a spectrum, assigning ‘weight’ or credibility based on particular academic fields of study, and built upon a framework of their particular discipline.
Traditionalists reject the notion that revelation and history should be interpreted through a particular discipline of worldly learning; they recognize that man’s ideas are in a fluid state—a whirlwind—of change, and subject to the influence of an enemy whose goal is man’s destruction. “Theories which once invoked great authority are abandoned and given the most derisive of treatment by a later generation only to be revived by a subsequent generation.”(20) Thus we can see the wisdom offered two thousand years ago, that when we accept the worldly approach, we are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”(21)
After interpreting revelation based on the scholar’s academic training, the progressive categorizes the revelations under various interpretations: myth, allegory, folklore, and sometimes inspiration—or perhaps attributing them to the historical environment of the receiving prophet. However, the progressive worldview does not accept the revelations as literal revelation from God in a concrete sense. Leonard Arrington related his belief that faiths that take the scriptures as divine revelation are inconsistent and illogical:
A big mistake is always made when one attempts to interpret the Scriptures literally . . . The Scriptures are contradictory, and inconsistent and any theology based upon them cannot help but be inconsistent and illogical. . . . It comes back to the fact that people must use their reason as well as their faith.”(22)
The Prophet Joseph Smith, a true traditionalist—perhaps one could even say, the father of traditionalism—entertained angels and witnessed firsthand, God the Father and His Son. The Prophet described engaging in literal combat with the adversary and his dominion; he spoke of receiving the pure word and will of God—directly fromGod. For the Prophet Joseph, this was not mere inspiration—and it certainly was not mythological, allegorical, nor the subject of folklore; it constituted an actual, literal, personal experience. The Prophet warned:
. . . whatever we may think of revelation, that without it we can neither know, nor understand any thing of God, or the devil; and however unwilling the world may be to acknowledge this principle, it is evident from the multifarious creeds and notions concerning this matter, that they understand nothing of this principle, and it is equally as plain that without a divine communication they must remain in ignorance.
Traditionalists believe that progressives are destined to inherit ‘unenlightenment’ because they reject revelation. Progressives believe that traditionalists are mired in ignorance because they do not fully accept and embrace the philosophies and teachings of the ‘learned.’ Regardless of which position one takes, nearly all agree—an unbridgeable gulf separates the two.” FAITH CRISIS, VOLUME 1: WE WERE NOT BETRAYED! By James and Hannah Stoddard Page 9-10
Notes: 20- David E. Bohn, “No Higher Ground: Objective History is an Illusive Chimera,” Sunstone Magazine 8 (May-June 1983): 30. 21- 2 Timothy 3:7. 22- Gregory A. Prince, “Faith and Doubt as Partners in Mormon History,” Leonard J. Arrington Mormon History Lecture Series, no. 19, 3.:
Is Our Dominant Narrative True?
From the Book “FAITH CRISIS, VOLUME 1: WE WERE NOT BETRAYED!” by James and Hannah Stoddard
“On April 21, 2017, a Salt Lake Tribune headline announced, “’Trust gap’ hounds the Mormon church, research shows.” The article showcased a 2016 study completed by Dr. Jana Riess, a Latter-day Saint author and editor, who demonstrated that the unprecedented faith crisis among Latter-day Saint members was stemming not so much from history, politics, or unpopular doctrines—but from a trust gap:
Riess has been conducting a large-scale survey, called The Next Mormons, and has been “struck by the fact that among former Mormons, particular historical problems or doctrines don’t emerge as the primary reasons for leaving the church,” she writes. “. . . Book of Mormon historicity ranks ninth, and the other specific historical issues barely register at all.”
Instead, the “third most common reason overall (and tied for first among millennials),” Riess reports, was “I did not trust the church leadership to tell the truth surrounding controversial or historical issues.” (1)
Many have suspected seer stones, polygamy, the Book of Abraham, Mountain Meadows Massacre, and other sensitive issues as the driving force behind the growing exodus away from the Church; but surprisingly, this may not be the case. Peggy Fletcher Stack reported:
Some Latter-day Saints may leave the fold after finding out aspects of their history that don’t match the Sunday school version — like the fact founder Joseph Smith peered at a “seer stone” in a hat to help him produce the Book of Mormon — but such discoveries are not what drive away most former believers.
It’s the realization that they didn’t hear those stories first from their church.(2)
As one former Latter-day Saint lamented,
I was sold a “one true church” gospel, and it’s just not true so I can’t bring myself to support something so full of lies. . . . I was very faithful to the church for 43 years. My dad was a mission president in South America when I was 9. I have a son on a mission in Russia. I did not lose my faith lightly or because I wanted to sin. I felt completely betrayed, like I had been told lies my whole life. It hurt a lot. (Becky Berger, Richmond) (3)
Over the years, the authors have spoken with many hundreds of members who were either experiencing a crisis of faith of their own—or had a friend, relative, or family member who had abandoned the Church. The pain, the tears, the fear, and the doubt we have witnessed prompted us to address some of these issues, and to write this series, Faith Crisis.
Notes: 1- Peggy Fletcher Stack, “’Trust Gap’ Hounds the Mormon Church, Research Shows,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2017, https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5196148&itype=CMSID. 2- Peggy Fletcher Stack, “’Trust Gap’ Hounds the Mormon Church, Research Shows,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2017, https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5196148&itype=CMSID. 3- Peggy Fletcher Stack, “’Trust Gap’ Hounds the Mormon Church, Research Shows,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2017, https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5196148&itype=CMSID.
FAITH CRISIS, VOLUME 2: BEHIND CLOSED DOORS—LEONARD ARRINGTON & THE PROGRESSIVE REWRITING OF MORMON HISTORY
Description By Joseph Smith Foundation During the 20th century, an organized objective to rewrite Latter-day Saint history from within, unbeknownst to the general Church membership, went head to head behind the scenes with traditional leaders of the Church. Meet the main players of this conflict: Leonard Arrington—progressive “Father of New Mormon History,” Ezra Taft Benson—traditionalist defender, and many other advocates of traditionalist and progressive Latter-day Saint history.
As traditionalists and progressives sparred during the 1970s-1980s, a covert cold war commenced in Salt Lake City, Utah, with the progressives spying on the traditionalists, and the traditionalists spying on the progressives. Secret informants, leaked documents, falsified reports, and even employed pseudonyms—all were part of this struggle to dominate Latter-day Saint history. But how did, and does, this secret conflict affect you? Progressives, working in the Church History Department and at Brigham Young University, claimed 40 years ago that it would take a generation to re-educate the Church. Where are we now in that re-education?
The USA, only Land where His Work could be Commenced
“…in culmination of the grand scheme of schemes, this great nation, the Republic of the United States, might be established upon this land as an asylum for the oppressed; a resting place, it might be said, for the Ark of the covenant, where the temple of our God might be built; where the plan of salvation might be introduced and practiced in freedom, and not a dog would wag his tongue in opposition to the purposes of the Almighty. We believe that this was His object in creating the Republic of the United States; the only land where his work could be commenced or the feet of his people find rest.No other land had such liberal institutions, had adopted so broad a platform upon which all men might stand. We give glory to those patriots for the noble work they did; but we give the first glory to God, our Father and their Father, who inspired them. We take them by the hand as brothers. We believe they did nobly their work, even as we would fain do ours, faithfully and well, that we might not be recreant in the eyes of God, for failing to perform the mission to which He has appointed us.” Bishop Orson F. Whitney, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, April 19, 1885. Reported by John Irvine. Journal Discourses Volume 26 Page 201
