Print Friendly and PDF

Thursday, February 25, 2021

When the Brethren’s Lack of Discernment Cost Lives, the Church's Reputation and Funds

As members, we are told that when it comes to the Church's leaders,

“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.” [1]

“In today’s world, where 24 hours a day television and radio commentators spew forth conflicting opinions, where marketers compete for everything from your money to your vote, there is one clear, unpolluted, unbiased voice that you can always count on. And that is the voice of the living prophet and the apostles. Their only motive is ‘the everlasting welfare of your souls’ (2 Ne. 2:30).” [2]

“There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. 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.” [3]

“…We will not and … cannot lead you astray.” [4]

“Keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the Church. … We will not and … cannot lead [you] astray.” [4]

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” [5]

“You keep your eyes riveted on the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We will not lead you astray. We cannot. Let me tell you why. Every week that I am in town, I attend a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve on the fourth floor of the Salt Lake Temple. If you could see the process by which decision and direction comes from that meeting, you would have a deep sense of confidence and comfort that the will of the Lord is being taught by the leaders of the Church. So keep your eyes riveted on the leadership of the Church. While individuals may falter, the body of general Church leadership will remain steadfast and true. If someone tells you that they have received revelation that the First Presidency and the Twelve have not received, run away from them.” [6]

Yet all these quotes (spoken by church apostles/prophets about church apostles/prophets) do not apply to circumstances in which they are regularly and personally meeting with a man who is consistently deceiving the church of untold thousands of dollars, about to ruin the church's reputation and will murder two individuals mere minutes before meeting with an apostle (who is now next in line for the church's presidency).

"Murder Among the Mormons"


On the morning of Oct. 15, 1985, a homemade bomb exploded in downtown Salt Lake City, killing financial consultant Steve Christensen, who collected historical documents. Shortly afterwards, a second bomb went off in Holladay, UT, killing Kathy Sheets, the wife of Christensen’s former boss.

The next day, a third bomb went off in a car parked in downtown Salt Lake City. It seriously injured document dealer Mark Hofmann and set off an investigation that lasted more than a year, resulting in Hofmann’s lifetime imprisonment.

35 years later, most members have only a vague recollection at best regarding Mark Hofmann and his murders.  [7]

What most don't remember is another victim of Hofmann's maniacal mayhem: the church's reputation.


The Church Deceived in 1980 

 In 1980, Hofmann claimed that he had found a 17th-century King James Bible with a folded paper gummed inside. [8]  The document seemed to be the transcript that Joseph Smith's scribe Martin Harris had presented to Charles Anthon, a Columbia classics professor, in 1828. According to Joseph Smith–History, the transcript and its unusual reformed Egyptian characters were copied by Smith from the golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon. 

Hofmann actually constructed his version to fit Anthon's description of the document, and its discovery made Hofmann's reputation. Dean Jessee, an editor of Joseph Smith's papers and the best-known expert on handwriting and old documents in the Church’s Historical Department, concluded that the document was authentic. The Church announced the discovery of the Anthon Transcript in April and purchased it from Hofmann for more than $20,000. [9]



Why can't discernment no longer help true prophets and apostles detect when a forger and soon-to-be murderer is standing right next to them selling a bogus document?

The Church Deceived in 1981 


Hofmann arrived at Church Headquarters with a document which supposedly provided evidence that Joseph Smith had designated his son, Joseph Smith III (rather than Brigham Young) as his successor. In a forged cover letter, purportedly written by Thomas Bullock and dated January 27, 1865, Bullock chastises Young for having all copies of the blessing destroyed. Bullock writes that although he believes Young to be the legitimate leader of the LDS Church, he would keep his copy of the blessing. Such a letter, if true, would portray Young and, by extension, the LDS Church, in an unfavorable light. 

Hofmann tried to sell the letter to the Church’s chief archivist. Hofmann expected the church to "buy the blessing on the spot and bury it." When the archivist balked at the price, Hofmann offered it to the RLDS Church (now known as the Community of Christ), which had always claimed that the line of succession had been bestowed on Smith's descendants but had never had written proof. A scramble to acquire the document occurred, and Hofmann, posing as a faithful member, presented it to the LDS Church in exchange for items worth more than $20,000. [10]

Gordon B. Hinckley Deceived in 1983 


Hofmann bypassed the LDS Church's historical department and sold, for $15,000 to Gordon B. Hinckley (then second counselor in First Presidency), an 1825 Joseph Smith holograph purporting to confirm that Smith had been treasure hunting and practicing black magic five years after his First Vision. Then Hofmann leaked its existence to the press, after which the church was virtually forced to release the letter to scholars for study, despite previously denying it had it in its possession. [11]

The Church Deceived in 1984 


This is where we discuss the famous "Salamander Letter" -- a (forged) letter purported to reveal that a magical salamander guided Joseph Smith to the gold plates. It’s a shocking contrast to the Church’s orthodox account, which says the Angel Moroni appeared to Smith and led him to the plates. Hence the belief that the church bought controversial documents to hide them from the general public. 

Hoffman sold the forged “Salamander letter” to Steven F. Christensen on January 6, 1984, who then donated the letter to the church on April 12, 1985. Hinckley accepted the donation. [12]

1985: Hofmann Kills, then meets Dallin H Oaks 


On October 15, 1985, Hofmann killed document collector Steven Christensen (as well as injuring a secretary in the leg with shrapnel). Later the same day, a second bomb killed Kathy Sheets, the wife of Christensen's former employer. 

On the afternoon following the bombings, Hofmann met with LDS Church apostle Dallin H. Oaks about the McLellin collection, a meeting which fellow document collector Brent Metcalfe believed had religious significance to Hofmann. "He's just killed two people. And what does he do? He goes down to the church office building and meets with Dallin Oaks. I can't even imagine the rush, given Hofmann's frame of reference, that this would have given him. To be standing there in front of one of God's appointed apostles, after murdering two people, and this person doesn't hear any words from God, doesn't intuit a thing. For Hofmann that must have been an absolute rush. He had pulled off the ultimate spoof against God." [13]

Regarding that meeting, Oaks said Hofmann expected to be questioned by the police regarding the murders. ''He said he was worried about what he should say to them,'' said Oaks. ''I told him he should just answer their questions and tell them the truth.'' After about 10 minutes, Oaks said, Hofmann left.” [14]

The following day, Hofmann himself was severely injured when a bomb exploded in his car. Although police quickly focused on Hofmann as the suspect in the bombings. 

The Church Publicizes its Purchased Forgeries 


On April 28, 1985, the Church News published the full text of the Salamander Letter. This solidified the fact that the church had been unknowingly purchasing forged historical documents, with church funds, from Hofmann before the bombings. 

“But during the investigation, it has become evident that high officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were doing a brisk business with Hofmann. Hinckley said at a press conference that, starting in 1980, he had purchased about 40 documents from Hofmann. Only a few of them have been made public; others are in a church vault. Whether they cast any new light on the church's past is not known.” 

Hinckley himself fielded criticism for some time for "being duped" and being "unable to discern the evil intentions of a man like Hofmann". Hinckley later noted: 

“I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however. We bought those documents only after the assurance that they were genuine. And when we released documents to the press, we stated that we had no way of knowing for sure if they were authentic. I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens.” [15]

1987: The Church’s Official Admission of Being Duped 


In the October 1987 Ensign Magazine, the Church published a list of forged documents that had been referenced in the Ensign so that readers would not refer to them in error. [10]

In the same magazine, Dallin H. Oaks explained the extent of the church’s dealings with Hofmann: 

“What President Hinckley said was that he had purchased two documents, and Church History Department personnel had acquired the rest.” [16] 

Oaks then defined what made up the totality of the documents acquired… 

“On 11 April 1986, after months of searching through its records and collections, the Church published a complete list of the forty-eight documents and groups of court records then known to have been acquired from Mark Hofmann. That list spoke for itself: It was a mixture of the already-published, the intriguing, the routine, and the trivial. Now, over a year later, we know that some of the forty-eight are forgeries, because they were named in the criminal charges and confessed by Hofmann during his questioning by prosecutors.” 

…and the associated costs: 

“all of these documents were listed publicly over a year ago, together with their total cash purchase price of $57,100, plus traded documents of undetermined value.” [16] 

But why were Hofmann's deceits not detected by the several Church leaders with whom he met? Here's Dallin H Oaks again...

“In order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year. Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love. In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see. It is better for a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious." [16]
 

QUESTIONS

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

  • So, "you can always count on" the Brethren. Would you agree if you were a close friend or relative of Mark Hofmann, Steven Christensen or Kathy Sheets?
  • “Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year.” While this is true, I would think that sitting (in their own Church Headquarters office) across from a man who is about to commit multiple murders, while already deceiving church leaders and publicly robbing them of their credibility, would kind of rise above the rest.
  • So two dead people and the church's discernment powers in shambles is the price leaders "pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people"? Please explain. 
  • So, people getting blown up are "occasional disappointments"?
  • Although President Kimball was supposed to be a "seer" and have the power to "translate all records that are of ancient date" (Mosiah 8:13), he was unable to translate the characters which appear on the (fake) Anthon transcript. Was he a seer or not?
  • The Apostle Peter caught Ananias and Sapphira red-handed in their attempt to deceive the church with regard to a financial transaction: "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" (Acts 5:3). This was not an atmosphere of trust and love. But now we are told that “Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love.” 
    • Why couldn’t a modern-day apostle do the same as Peter? 
    • Or have discernment dynamics among apostles changed so that they can only discern “in an atmosphere of trust and love”?
    • Does the “atmosphere” need to be one of “trust and love” in order for discernment to kick in?
    • If leadership can only discern “in an atmosphere of trust and love”, and aren’t expected to be suspicious and questioning around bad people, then how are the bad people ever to be detected and approached?
  • If church leaders had the discernment of Peter, could they have conceivably detected Hofmann's bombing plans? Could that discernment have saved lives and church funds? 

SOURCES

1.  Dallin H Oaks, “The Lord Leads His Church through Prophets and Apostles”, Ensign, March, 2020)
2.  M. Russell Ballard in “Sustaining Our Prophets and Apostles,” ChurchofJesusChrist.org; see also “Here Am I, Send Me” (Brigham Young University devotional, Mar. 13, 2001), 5, speeches.byu.edu)
3.  Joseph Fielding Smith, “Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside,” Ensign, July 1972, p. 88)
4.  M. Russell Ballard, October 2014 General Conference)
5.  Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78)
6.  Russell M Ballard, “When Shall These Things Be?” BYU Devotional, March 12, 1996)
7.  https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/tv/2021/02/23/murder-among-mormons/ 
8.  Robert Lindsey, A Gathering of Saints: A True Story of Money Murder and Deceit (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), p. 65-66.
9.  Ibid, p. 66-69
10.  Ibid, p. 80-81
11.  Allan D. Roberts, "The Truth is the Most Important Thing: A Look at Mark W. Hofmann, the Mormon Salamander Man" Archived 2008-02-05 at the Wayback Machine
12.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamander_letter
13.  Simon Worrall, "The Poet and the Murderer: A true story of literary crime and the art of forgery," 2002, p. 232, Also see Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 24, 1985
14.  Robert Lindsey, "The Mormons; Growth, Prosperity And Controversy", Time, Jan. 12, 1986
15.  Sheri L. Dew, Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, page 432; FAIR sets the date of Mr. Hinckley's statement as October 18, 1995
16.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/10/recent-events-involving-church-history-and-forged-documents?lang=eng

Sunday, January 24, 2021

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

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