The word “Mormon”: You’d be surprised who has – and is – literally embracing this reported curse word.

Of all the swear words we members are exposed to, one of the most vicious, brutal and evil is this word: Mormon.

Even Pres. Nelson said in 2016 that those who use such nicknames are scoring "a major victory for Satan" and "are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us-even His Atonement." [1] 

That's a pretty heavy condemnation for those who have or still do use this nickname.

Today, church members readily accept the divinity of Pres. Nelson's declaration. I read one account online of a man who asked a relative, "Do you really think using Mormon is gone forever?" His response: "Absolutely, because a prophet of God has told us so by revelation and I have received personal confirmation from the Spirit."

Thus, the word "Mormon" is so despised within our church, that it's even being equated with another racial epithet (as explained by one person on a Facebook group): 

With the hypersensitivity and persecution complex now going off the charts among members, I thought it might be helpful to see who exactly scored these victories for Satan in the past…and still do, today. More importantly, we'll see why…

The word "Mormon" is perhaps THE most significant

doctrinal dilemma in the church today.

The Shocking History of Who's Used the Word "Mormon"

Click here to see 80-ish instances where Pres. Nelson's predecessors used the word "Mormon." Here are a few highlights:

• Joseph Smith: "we have the word "mormon"; which means, literally, 'more good.'" [2] 
• Brigham Young: "We Christians are divided and subdivided, but we all believe that there are good people among all the sects of the day. As a "Mormon" or Latter-day Saint, I believe this just as much as any sectarian believes it, but I do not believe it as the sectarians believe it." [3]  
• David O. McKay: "A true Mormon home is one in which if Christ should chance to enter, he would be pleased to linger and to rest." [4]
• Spencer W. Kimball: "I have always gloried in those words: 'I might be envied by a king, For I am a 'Mormon' Boy.'" [5] 
• Thomas S Monson: "Dare to be a Mormon; Dare to stand alone. Dare to have a purpose firm; Dare to make it known." [6] 

Perhaps the most notable difference in opinions is found between Presidents Nelson and Hinckley. Here's a side-by-side comparison of President Hinckley from the October 1990 General Conference, and President Nelson from the October 2018 General Conference. It was one of the few instances in the church's history when one church president (in this case, Nelson) openly, publicly disputed the supposedly inspired words of another church president (Hinckley).

Since that exchange, the church - under Presidents Hinckley and Monson - launched aggressive, worldwide promotions of the word "Mormon":

• May 18, 2009 - September 17, 2019: The "Mormon Channel" aired. [7] 
• January 2011 - October 2018: The "I'm a Mormon" advertising campaign ran worldwide. [8] 
• 2014: "Meet the Mormons" movie hit theaters. [9] 

Alms Before Men

One of the most prominent church-based promotions has been its member-oriented "Mormon Helping Hands" humanitarian efforts, which are best known by members wearing yellow vests/t-shirts which include a certain curse word:

Here's a Sept. 4, 2016 picture of President (then Elder) Nelson meeting with some of the 5,000 Church members who assisted in Louisiana disaster relief efforts. See how upset he is with that "Mormon" word on all those vests?

Other leaders who actually wore the "Mormon Helping Hands" vest/t-shirt include:

• 2017: Pres. Henry B Eyring [10] 
• 2017: Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf  [11]
• 2017: Presiding Bishop Gérald Caussé [11]
• 2017: Elder M. Russell Ballard [12] 
• 2017: Elder Ronald A. Rasband [12]
• October 21, 2018 (16 days after Pres. Nelson's conference talk on "Mormon"): Elder David A Bednar [13] 
• October 22, 2018 (17 days after Pres. Nelson's conference talk on "Mormon"): President Dallin H. Oaks [14] 

Look Who's Still Using "Mormon" Today

Today, Deseret Book (which is owned by the church) [15] sells many books and/or videos online containing the word "Mormon," including:

• Mobsters and Mormons
• Meet the Mormons
• Mormons: An Open Book
• Are Mormons Christians?
• Canadian Mormons
• Diary of Two Mad Black Mormons
• Mormons and Masons
• The Mormons
• Mormons in the Piazza
• Much Ado About Mormons
• Mormons and the Bible
• What of the Mormons
• Mormons and Muslims
• Expulsion of the Mormons
• Mormon Redress Petitions
• Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction

Also, when you type the satanic victory terms Mormon.org or LDS.org into your internet browser, you're redirected to -- you guessed it -- the church's website. 

Introducing…The Changeable God!

So here we have perhaps the greatest doctrinal dilemma in the church today.

On one side we have…

All the prophets before Pres. Nelson: From 1842 (when we have Joseph using the word "Mormon') to 2018, the Lord apparently had no problem with the usage of the word "Mormon." He inspired prophets and apostles to spend tens of millions of dollars promoting the church under the "Mormon" banner. He had no problem with the word "Mormon" as it was said - and/or sung - by every one of His prophets.

On the other side, we have…

Pres. Nelson, who was allegedly "impressed" by the Lord to say that those who use the word "Mormon" offend the Lord, score "a major victory for Satan" and "are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us-even His Atonement."  

So who's right?

That's THE question regarding usage of the word "Mormon." This is because:

1. The church makes a big deal of how the prophets are inspired and chosen by God, so their words can be trusted. As I stated two posts ago, "Following the prophet" now "supersedes" all other primary Christian doctrines.
2. The Lord is crystal clear: He doesn't change His mind.

"For I am the LORD, I change not" [16] 

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." [17] 

"God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" [18] 

What God says applies eternally. This is only logical because…

How can we trust God's promises
if He's liable to change His mind?

So, let's take God at his word and assume he doesn't change, and that we CAN trust his promises. We are then left with a tremendous dilemma:

If Pres. Nelson is correct, and usage of the word "Mormon" is indeed offensive to God, then..

• Why did God allow all of Nelson's predecessors -- from Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson -- to score victories for Satan? 
• Why did God encourage said prophets to spend countless millions (in marketing and advertising campaigns) solidifying those victories? 
• How can you possibly trust any of the words of past prophets who were actually scoring victories for Satan? 
• What else were the past prophets wrong about? 
• Why did it take God so long to tell us how bad the word "Mormon" is?

If Pres. Nelson is wrong, then…

• He has presented as inspiration and truth the teachings of a man mingled with scripture. This contradicts his statements that "Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!" and "Thus our commission as apostles is to teach nothing but truth." [19]  
• What else is he wrong about?

You can't have Pres. Nelson's predecessors be doing a supposedly acceptable thing to the Lord for generations, only for the Lord to change his mind and all of a sudden, it's bad. God doesn't change the rules in the middle of the game.

So, here's a question to answer in this day and age where we are told we can unequivocally trust church leaders:

Who's right: President Nelson or his predecessors? You can't have it both ways.

My Opinion

Nelson is wrong. God has more important things requiring the church leaders' -- and our -- attention: 

• He wants us to be spiritually and temporally prepared for his tribulations, which are coming sooner than most people suppose.
• Paramount in that preparation: He wants people to be able to hear and communicate one-on-one with him, not intermediaries or any mortal. Once society is without electricity and survivors are forced to flee from cities, you won't be able to hear the Brethren. But you might be able to hear the Lord, who is the only one who can save you.
• He wants people to trust in and prioritize his health advice, not government leaders (who never have and never will be his spokesmen).
• He wants us to support those who oppose, not advocate, abortion.
• He wants our church leaders to love, not abuse, children and women. 
• He wants us to prioritize and show charity towards people dying of starvation, war and brutality. 
• And he wants us to spend our charitable dollars to improve lives, not investment and real estate portfolios "where moth and rust doth corrupt". [20]  .

These are tremendously significant, weighty issues which far, far outweigh any focus on the name of his church.  

Sources

 1.   https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church
 2.   Times and Seasons, 1843, 4:194; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299-300
 3.   JD 17:51
 4.   Conference Report, October 1947, pp. 115-121
 5.   "Strengthening the Family-the Basic Unit of the Church," April 1978 General Conference
 6.   "Dare to Stand Alone", October 2011 General Conference
 7.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter-day_Saints_Channel
 8.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Mormon
 9.   https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/18/russell-m-nelson-mormon-not-substitute-full-name-church/1032948002
10.   https://mormonlifehacker.com/president-eyring-provides-lift-to-puerto-rico-st-thomas-and-aids-mormon-helping-hands-in-florida
11.   https://mormonlifehacker.com/uchtdorf-houston-hurricane-harvey
12.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/apostles-spend-time-with-flood-cleanup-volunteers-in-texas
13.   https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-10-21/a-florida-sabbath-day-defined-by-ministering-via-chainsaws-and-yellow-t-shirts-7406
14.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-oaks-promises-storm-weary-faithful-floridians-that-blessings-await
15.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Book_Company
16.   Malachi 3:6; 3 Nephi 24:6
17.   Hebrews 13:8
18.   Mormon 9:9; Moroni 10:7, 19; D&C 20:12
19.   Russell M Nelson, "The Love and Laws of God," BYU Devotional, September 17, 2019
20.   Matthew 6:19

Is the Church’s COVID-19 "vaccine" advocacy leading you astray? Could it kill you, or is it OK?

What if you decide not to take the jab?

It's become increasingly obvious that when it comes to taking the COVID-19 vaccination, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

In January (and again in March, in a General Handbook of Instructions update), the First Presidency said, "Individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. In making that determination, we recommend that, where possible, they counsel with a competent medical professional about their personal circumstances and needs."  [1] 

Two months later, they added this statement to the General Handbook:

"Vaccinations administered by competent medical professionals protect health and preserve life. Ultimately, individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. If members have concerns, they should counsel with competent medical professionals and also seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost." [2] 

So, what happens if your doctor and/or the Holy Ghost recommends not taking the jab, and you obey their advice? Clearly the church would discourage your dissing their advice.

But here's the deal: If you don't get the COVID-19 shot, you're considered a bad global citizen (and by implication, a bad Christian)…

"…the Church urges its members, employees and missionaries to be good global citizens and help quell the pandemic by safeguarding themselves and others through immunization."  [3]

…who is therefore unworthy to serve in significant church callings, like the Tabernacle Choir…

…and not supportive/sustaining of the Prophet (who got his jab while calling it a "godsend"): [4] 

To underscore its commitment to COVID-19 vaccination:

• In February 2021, the church humanitarian aid non-profit, Latter-day Saint Charities, gave $20 million to support COVAX, a global campaign to provide 2 billion COVID-19 injections to people in low- and middle-income countries. [4]
• On June 16, 2021, the church's Church Educational System Administration Board of Trustees (composed of the First Presidency and several apostles) announced that BYU-Hawaii students are required to get the COVID-19 jab in order to attend that school. [5] 

So there you have it: If you don't take the jab, then you don't sustain the prophet, the Brethren and the Church, you aren't a good citizen and you don't care about others' health. 

What if you decide to take the jab?

Obviously, you're going to be perceived as a good, obedient citizen, Christian and member.

But are there consequences as well?

I think there's a pretty good chance. Let's read Revelation 18:23: 

"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."

That's a pretty interesting verse right there when you read it in Greek. Take the word "sorceries," for example. In Greek it is the word pharmakeia - the root word for words we commonly use today, like pharmacist and pharmaceutical.

But have "all nations" been "deceived" about a pharmaceutical (specifically, the COVID-19 jab)?

On its way tripping over itself to embrace "the jab," have church leaders missed sight of the fact that the COVID-19 jab harms, injures and even kills people at rates never before seen and in ways which are undeniable?

Could they have been deceived, and in so doing, have deceived church members?

Let's take an in-depth look. Note that in these notes, I am wholly disinterested in conjecture, assumption and ill-founded conclusions. All I'm interested in are facts - and if stated by an expert, then all the much better. And if those facts are unjustifiably censored by Facebook and/or Google, then all the much better (because it's been my experience that those who seek to hide or bury truths are scared of them):

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO VIEW THESE IN-DEPTH NOTES, WHICH ARE UPDATED ON A (ROUGHLY) DAILY BASIS.

SOURCE CITATIONS RELEVANT TO COVID-19 AND NOT THE CHURCH ARE INCLUDED IN THE LINKED DOCUMENT. CHURCH-RELATED SOURCE CITATIONS ARE BELOW.

"A Global Faith Leader"

How can something so destructive be so praised by the church and its leaders?

Can a "prophet" ever mislead us? Here is what we are told:

As Pres. Dallin H Oaks recently stated,

“They [the apostles] teach and counsel as directed by the Holy Ghost, with no desire other than to speak what is true. Their voices can be trusted. Their voices are: clear, unpolluted, unbiased. You can always count on them. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.” [6]

"The Church of Jesus Christ has always been led by living prophets and apostles. Though mortal and subject to human imperfection, the Lord's servants are inspired to help us avoid obstacles that are spiritually life threatening and to help us pass safely through mortality to our final, ultimate, heavenly destination . . . While neither perfect nor infallible, these good men and women have been perfectly dedicated to leading the work of the Lord forward as He has directed." [7] 

Please review the facts regarding the jab I've included above. 

Do these facts demonstrate that "the Lord's servants" 

are helping you to "pass safely through mortality"?

Yet as I demonstrated in my past post, [1] We are told unequivocally NOT to trust in the arm of flesh, without exception and [2] prophets CAN screw up -- big time. It's happened before. Multiple scriptures and early church leaders repeatedly warned us not to trust in the arm of flesh, be they church leaders or not. 

Yet we, as a church culture, are instructed and advised to ignore such warnings, and that despite the absence of such, there's never, ever been an asterisk, exception or escape hatch to the "trust in the arm of flesh" injunctions.

Joseph Smith Jr. is considered the head of this dispensation. Here's what he said about trusting in the arm of (medical expert) flesh:

"I preached to a large congregation at the stand, on the science and practice of medicine, desiring to persuade the Saints to trust in God when sick, and not in an arm of flesh, and live by faith and not by medicine, or poison; and when they were sick, and had called for the Elders to pray for them, and they were not healed, to use herbs and mild food." [8]  

He later warned members about those physicians "going about the country pretending to cure you of all diseases, and you swallow what they give you like young robins, without knowing what it is. I wonder you don't die, taking their nostrums!"

Why is it that some are so eager to throw Brother Joseph under the bus and disregard his words? Why do they instead believe Russell M. Nelson is a prophet who's looking out for your best interests…when multiple, multiple facts prove otherwise?

Which prophet do you believe: Russell M Nelson (who trusts modern medical doctors) or Brother Joseph (who said we shouldn't)?

Could the tiebreaker be "By their fruits ye shall know them"? [9]  If that is the case, then what kind of fruits are the COVID-19 injections producing? What do the facts demonstrate?

Historically, prophets have warned mankind to repent. They were adamant that people not focus on the messenger, but the message, of repentance.  

These days, we are receiving NO message of impending destruction, 

but instead, a message to partake IN destruction.

With the church's steadfast, eager promotion of the COVID-19 injection, I'll leave it to you to evaluate the facts and judge if the church is misleading you today.

After all, the only thing hinging on your judgment is your mortal life (as you entrust your life, and the lives of your family, to pro-COVID-19 injection advocates) and your eternal soul (if you feel God's now OK with your trusting in the arm of flesh).

If (and likely, when) the mass casualties start happening, there's a very good chance that those who followed the prophet and got the jab will be fearful as they see the death count rise. What does one do in such an instance? How do we prevent and combat the inevitable despondency, depression and demoralization? [10] 

SOURCES

1.   First Presidency News Release, January 19, 2021
2.   38.7.13; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng
3.   First Presidency News Release, January 19, 2021
4.   https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/4/29/22407953/president-nelson-on-covid-19-vaccine-comments-speeches-actions-prayers-shot-church-news
5.   https://news.byuh.edu/announcements/covid-19-immunization-requirement-for-students-beginning-fall-2021
6.   “The Lord Leads His Church through Prophets and Apostles”, Ensign, March, 2020.
7.   M Russell Ballard, "God Is at the Helm," Oct 2015 General Conference
8.   Joseph Smith - History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Sunday September 4, 1841,Vol. 4:414
9.   Matthew 7:16-20
10.   https://www.bitchute.com/video/TYXeUgOHTohC

When government, corporations and the church takes away your God-given rights

Joseph Smith once said that "the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God." [1] He is quoted several times as being a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. [2]  

Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and receive news and express opinions. [3]  Many countries flout this international standard by banning or severely restricting the freedom of speech. They enforce silence with imprisonment, digital and physical surveillance, and other forms of harassment.  

Brother Joseph would certainly be no fan of countries which abridge fundamental civil rights. And these days, there are quite a few of them. Today, the world's most censored countries include: [4]

1. Eritrea
2. North Korea
3. Turkmenistan
4. Saudi Arabia
5. China
6. Vietnam
7. Iran
8. Equatorial Guinea
9. Belarus
10. Cuba

In all of these countries, if the private sector (especially the media) exists at all, it is in complete and total lockstep with the country's totalitarian regime.

Sound familiar?

I haven't even started.

The Rise of the Anti-Civil Liberty American Communist Party

In all the countries I mentioned above (and many more that I didn't), several governments not only prefer abridged freedom of speech, but also "selective enforcement," where laws are unequally applied nationwide. [5] Selective enforcement is widely considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law. [6] 

The "Democratic Party," which now runs the United States government (and its supporters) is itself philosophically aligned with the concept of selective enforcement of laws. For example:

• It favors not only punishing those who vandalized the U.S. Capitol building, but also those who were nowhere near Washington D.C. yet are politically aligned with the protesters who entered the Capitol. For example, musician Ariel Pink made the mistake of attending Trump's pre-march address, and didn't go anywhere near the Capitol; after the rally, he returned to his hotel and fell asleep. But for the crime of attending a political rally, Pink was punished. His record label promptly dropped him like a hot potato. He's likely more virulent than COVID in the music industry, and probably on the no-fly list, too. Yet these same politicians were silent while Antifa and BLM were defying law enforcement, destroying businesses and in fact lives in various cities across the U.S last summer.
• On May 16, 2017, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts. Was she ever charged with insurrection? No. Yet today, those who say the same about the 2020 Presidential Election are unfriended, blocked, silenced, blacklisted, threatened, jailed and worse.
• Last summer, left-wing protesters destroyed a police precinct (and laid siege for several days) in downtown Minneapolis. Yet soon thereafter, the Democratic Party, big tech and even current Vice President (then Senator) Kamala Harris supported establishing the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which bailed out the insurrectionists.

So, when left-leaning protesters destroy property, businesses and lives, it's OK. It should be supported. But should anybody dare to be at least a little right-leaning, their lives and livelihoods should be destroyed. 

That's called "selective enforcement."

The Rise of Corporate Communism

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, you won't see Congress scrambling to take away your freedom of speech anytime soon. But they don't have to.

The Biden campaign enthusiastically touted "Joe Biden's Plan to 'Build Back Better' for American Workers." The JoeBiden.com website publicized "Build Back Better: Joe Biden's Jobs and Economic Recovery Plan for Working Families."

What does that mean?

"Build back better" is a World Economic Forum (WEF) plan to "reinvent capitalism" so that companies are more focused on the greater good, not profits. [7]  How to accomplish that? "A 'great reset' of capitalism," the WEF wrote in June, 2020. [8] Three months later, it was called "The Great Reset Initiative." [9] 

Another three months later, the WEF launched a new initiative called the "Davos Manifesto."    It posed the question, "What kind of capitalism do we want?" And it answered by laying out three possibilities - "shareholder capitalism" (like we have in the U.S.), "state capitalism" (like China's emerging markets) and "stakeholder capitalism," which "positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today's social and environmental challenges." [10]

The bottom line: You're in good with the world's economic leaders if you put "the greater good" over profits...even if it's going to sting a little.

"Clearly, companies should still seek to … maintain an entrepreneurial mindset," the WEF wrote. "But they should also work with other stakeholders to improve the state of the world … In fact, this latter proviso should be their ultimate purpose." [10]

This is essentially what then-Senator Kamala Harris called for -- insisting that their opponents should be forced to stop talking -- in a Presidential Primary Debate last year. [11] What did Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, Instagram and Twitter do as soon as the electoral vote was finalized? They set their sights on Parler, another social media app. Not one person in law enforcement or the media has shown any conclusive evidence between any of the criminals caught on camera at the Capitol Building and Parler. Parler committed no crimes. So why are they gone? It's because conservatives spoke to each other (which was considered dangerous) on Parler. So they killed it.

That's a small, very small, glimpse into how corporations driven by social consciences serve: they become the arbiters of proper and acceptable human behaviors. They become the dictators of governance.

Don't like what your political opponents are saying? Not only kill their accounts, but also the social media platforms they use. Destroy any business who dares hire them. First Amendment, whoosh. Gone.

Congress won't pass so-called common sense gun controls? No worries; private companies will restrict firearms' sales. Banks will restrict funds to companies selling firearms. Businesses will boot all gun-carriers from their businesses. Second Amendment, whoosh. Gone.

And elections? Well, I think we've seen what private enterprise, mass and social media can do when they put their hearts and minds to it.

With the "build back better" and "great reset" campaign criteria, "No mask, no entry" (which is now the normal brick-and-mortar sign) will evolve into "No vaccine, no entry" and eventually into "No vaccine proof, no buying or selling" -- all per the standards set by corporate heads and their WEF partners.

The Death of the Freedom of Speech

So it should come as no surprise that if these companies can kill a competitor without any political repercussions, they're pretty dang secure in knowing they can shut down your individual freedom of speech, too. 

The Courts have ruled that the First Amendment, which addresses government actions, does not apply to corporations, which are more powerful than they have ever been in our nation's history. So Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media can limit speech on their own platforms if they want to. [12] If they don't like your pro-Trump meme, they can kick you off. If they don't like your pro-Republican post, you can close your account.

The scope and depth of this liberal-leaning, unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties is so repugnant, immoral and anti-American, it should shock our sensibilities. 

It sure shocked Alexi Navalny, the Russian dissident who was apparently poisoned last year by the Putin government. He's watched the recent crackdown by American Communists and their allies in the media and big tech. His conclusion: "We have seen many examples in Russia and in China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and enablers when it comes to censorship. This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world." 

So even in Russia, they know what's happening: America is witnessing the rise of communism dressed as social justice capitalism. It is the Russians, of all people, who know that it is dangerous and wrong.

This trend isn't just limited to mass and social media corporations. Earlier this month, PayPal (which is supposed to be a payment processor, not a political party or a law enforcement agency) suspended the accounts of Trump supporters who traveled to Washington D.C. It's not clear that any of these people participated in illegal acts. But we do know they were shut down for their political views. AIG Insurance also canceled the account of baseball legend Curt Schilling because of his conservative social media profile. [13] 

In 2017 (a few weeks after the aforementioned Pelosi tweet), a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to murder Republican congressmen at a baseball practice in Arlington, Virginia. He almost succeeded; he shot and almost killed Rep. Steve Scalise. Yet none of these "woke," morally aware corporations suspended donations to Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi. These same companies also remained silent while BLM set fire to the Episcopal Church in front of the White House. They also said nothing while rioters destroyed a federal building in Portland, OR. 

The twin sister of selective enforcement is selective, biased journalism, which we see in virtually every news organization in the country today.

The Biden Era was originally touted as a return to normalcy. But it turns out that it is instead a new normal: silencing or eliminating the potential for dissent, blacklisting and threatening groups of people for their political beliefs. All for the "greater good."

Which leads us to a discussion about the Church's newly-revised General Handbook of Instructions...

How the Church Now Takes Away Your Membership Rights

One corporation which has also taken away your rights is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

D&C 102 is the doctrinal and administrative foundation of the church's membership disciplinary process. It is the foundation because it is canonized scripture, which assumes a preeminent status in all matters of doctrine unless the church, via the Law of Common Consent, approves a new canonized revelation which supersedes previous revelation. 

In a stake disciplinary council, the high council and stake presidency meet to deliberate upon the member's membership status. 

Although it is not called such, here is how a disciplinary council meeting is supposed to operate (per D&C 102):

Lest anyone doubt the approval of these procedures, here is what is recorded in the History of the Church:

"Bro. Joseph … said he would show the order of councils in ancient days as shown to him by vision. The law by which to govern the council in the Church of Christ. Jerusalem was the seat of the Church Council in ancient days. The apostle, Peter, was the president of the Council and held the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth [and] was appointed to this office by the voice of the Savior and acknowledged in it by the voice of the Church. … It was not the order of heaven in ancient councils to plead for and against the guilty as in our judicial Courts (so called) but that every counsellor when he arose to speak, should speak precisely according to evidence and according to the teaching of the Spirit of the Lord; that no counsellor should attempt to screen the guilty when his guilt was manifest. That the person accused before the high council had a right to one half the members of the council to plead his cause in order that his case might be fairly presented before the President that a decision might be rendered according to truth and righteousness. … Bro. Joseph said that this organization was an ensample to the high priests in their Councils abroad. … It was then voted by all present that they desired to come under the present order of things which they all considered to be the will of God." [14] 

When the corrected minutes were later presented, Brother Joseph wrote, "We all raised our hands to heaven in token of the everlasting covenant, and the Lord blessed us with His Spirit. I then declared the council organized according to the ancient order, and also according to the mind of the Lord." [15] 

In December 2020, the church produced an updated General Handbook of Instructions (GHI). [16]  Here is a comparison of D&C 102 and the new GHI section concerning "Membership Councils":

As you can see, GHI 32.9.2 now makes the high council's involvement in the disciplinary process optional. This is important because D&C 102:2 tells us that "The high council was appointed by revelation for the purpose of settling important difficulties which might arise in the church, which could not be settled by the church or the bishop's council to the satisfaction of the parties." 

But now, "Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils."  "However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate" in certain circumstances.

Although the GHI quotes D&C 102:2, it not only disregards, but it boldly supersedes, D&C 102:12-27. All without a vote of the members per the Law of Common Consent. [17]

Pres. George Albert Smith called the involvement of high councils tantamount to a "correct organization of a court on earth":

"I believe that there never was a more correct organization of a court on earth than our High Councils, for these men go to work and investigate a case, hear the testimony pro and con, the Councilors for each party litigant present the case, it is submitted to the President who sums up, gives his decision and calls on the Council to sanction it by their vote, and if they are not united, they have to go to work and try the case over again in order that they may ascertain more perfectly the facts in the case and be united in their decision."  [18]

Additionally, if a stake membership council is appealed, the matter is in the hands of the First Presidency. "The case is conducted again, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made." (D&C 102:27). Yet in the new GHI (32.13), the re-conducted case is now optional ("If a membership council is held to consider an appeal...")

Members (and even those who are barely members) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rights. According to our canonized scriptures, they have the right to have their cases heard by a high council, an essential component endorsed by Joseph Smith and Pres. George Albert Smith. Members also have the right to have their case heard "as though no such decision had been made" by the First Presidency.

UPDATES

1/28/21: Davos Gives a Pass to Xi Jinping's Hypocrisy

1/28/21: John Kerry Declares Biden Administration Will Support 'Great Reset' Economic Initiative

QUESTIONS

Based on the aforementioned facts, I have the following questions:

• Do you believe the scriptures to be the revealed words of God?
• Do you believe D&C 26:2 ("And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith.") to be the revealed word of God?
• Do you believe that the General Handbook of Instructions has supremacy over the scriptures in terms of church operational procedures? If so, when did church members vote on this per the Law of Common Consent? 
• Do you believe D&C 102:12-27 to be the revealed word of God?
• When were the policies which overrode D&C 102:12-27 voted on by the general membership of the church?
• Do you believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God?
• Do you believe his statements regarding the importance of high councils?
• Does God change his mind, or are his paths straight?
• Why does the church no longer want high councilors to be part of disciplinary council meetings?
• Why are appeals to the First Presidency no longer automatic?

SOURCES

1.   Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 147-48
2.   https://www.latterdayconservative.com/quotes/joseph-smith/
3.   https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
4.   https://cpj.org/reports/2019/09/10-most-censored-eritrea-north-korea-turkmenistan-journalist/
5.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
6.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement
7.   https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/
8.   https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/to-build-back-better-we-must-reinvent-capitalism-heres-how/
9.   https://www.weforum.org/great-reset
10.   https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/why-we-need-the-davos-manifesto-for-better-kind-of-capitalism/
11.   https://youtu.be/MNwq_VgTmSs?t=281
12.   https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650
13.   https://www.libertybell.com/baseball-legend-curt-schilling-says-aig-cancelled-insurance-because-hes-conservative-but-heres-who-they-will-insure/
14.   "Kirtland High Council Minute Book," Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, pp. 29-32
15.   History of the Church, 2:32-33
16.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils
17.   D&C 26:2
18.   George Albert Smith, "Necessity of Understanding," Journal of Discourses 10:59