The church has a lot of discernment failures in it’s wake. Church leaders got majorly duped by the forger and con man Mark Hoffman. Russell M Nelson had to do a quick reversal of not allowing children of same sex parents to be baptized after receiving huge backlash. Russell M Nelson claimed past church leaders were serving Satan by allowing the word Mormon to be used on a massive scale in the church. Nelson made the bold move to show he was the most inspired church leader but he failed to predict the COVID 19 pandemic that threw a huge wrench in his “You’ve seen nothing yet!” Plans. Russ fell on his ass and now is slowing down.

The grand plans of building a New Jerusalem in Missouri failed. Brigham Young’s grand scheme to build a new Deseret nation with its own alphabet failed. Brigham is such an embarrassment to the church his Journal of Discourses are no longer considered modern day scripture. Only modern day General Conference talks are.

The biggest success of the church was taking a base of cash tithing and investing that into tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars since the 1950’s. N Eldon Tanner just might be the biggest church hero. It took a businessman to run the church in the green. Before that the so called discerning church leadership were always running in debt.


The church now can afford lawyers and has vast sums of money to get its way and cover its mistakes. It runs like a big corporation. In fact, asset wise it no longer needs the members but $7 billion/year of tax free donations and thousands of free laborers who view you as God’s representatives on earth is hard to give up.

The stone rolls forth. Business men have kept the church leaders from running the church into the ground. David O McKay was at least smart enough to realize running the church was over his head. The biggest great move in the church was turning it into a business and running it with business people called The Presiding Bishopric.

Funny how the entire church became a reflection of the businessmen who run it. It's a giant business, and they show little success with anything else but being a business that makes money.

Compared to the business aspects, they haven't done anything significant in the religious aspect. They don't heal people. Their impact on charity and helping the poor is transitional. They are not making a difference in climate crises, pandemics or wars. They are impotent when it comes to human crisis.

Their only response is to hoard money and land which is the last thing humanity needs a religion to be doing. Religion should not be the organization that runs malls and ranch businesses under the guise of being prepared for "end days." Their main instruction is for members to pray and give them money, and they don't even need more money at this point.

The Mark Hofmann fiasco should have been the end of any illusions of discernment among LDS Church leaders. They were completely taken in by Hofmann's forgeries, and then invented bogus stories to explain them away.

Hofmann forged a document that claimed that JS said that his son should be the next prophet of the church after him. Dallin Oaks "explained" that he was speaking as a father, not as a prophet. Yeah, right. He wasn't speaking at all - the doc was forged.

So, no discernment, and no integrity. A two-fer.

Some people did leave the church after that, but many were good enough at pretzel logic to twist their way around that awkward event.


But yeah, money. They're good at money.

Brother Of Jerry
>
> But yeah, money. They're good at money.

Other people's money that is...

just sayin'

    
    This certainly is the most
    likely explanation for me
    being called to be an EQP.

To the contrary, the inspiration was there. You just didn't fulfill the measure of your creation.

Like at Disneyland.

Think about their recent lack or discernment:
* Children of a gay parent
* Most everything about the Covid business
* Ensign Peak
* Investing in Hamas and the arms trade. (Look up other threads on this. I haven't made either of these up.)

The church keeps baptizing murderers. Some of them while they're still alive.

They don't have much discernment.

Isn't murder okay if it's for God? Like in the Old Testament.

Discernment, aka perception, comes from two places. Your gut/street smarts, or, the famous "Spirit" which just means you don't have to back up what you say you discerned.

They have not had a chance to read Discernment For Dummies; the GA’s are just too durn busy.

What the heck are they “ authorities” about anyway?

In what I believe to be
an allied point of view
regarding the church:


"A strict authoritarian religious
upbringing incentivizes artful and
creative lying.”

This!

You'd think a living profet (sic) would be useful. Maybe Nelson didn't make it because world fleet of corporate jets was committed before he was invited.

You vastly overrate the importance of the Davos crowd.

So much, in fact, that one wonders if you're just upset you've never been invited.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You vastly overrate the importance of the Davos
> crowd.
>
> So much, in fact, that one wonders if you're just
> upset you've never been invited.

The main question is whether the likes of Aaron Sherinian (or Sharon Eubank) attended. Maybe Rasband as well, since he appears to be into all this too. If you have enough noney, you can buy your way in, and we know the church isn't short of filthy lucre.

There were effectively two WEF events going on. Firstly, the semi-public one you can buy tickets to, and which produces some photos and footage which are released to the general public. And secondly, the other meetings that take place completely privately and don't tend to get publicized. (One of these was where North and South Korean leaders were able to meet. I suppose one could argue this was a positive thing, but they could do this there without angering the public and the military at home.) I wonder if the LDS leaders ever go to the private meetings? Maybe, maybe not. They do attend international interreligious meetings which serve a similar correlating purpose.

Why would anyone "overestimate the Davos crowd"? It includes the world's major politicians meeting with big business away from democratic scrutiny. That alone is a major conflict of interest. There is only one way to overestimate Davos, and that is to forget it is part of a much broader range of international meetings and communications. Some of these like COP and UN groups are very public but most aren't. But a lot of what Davos discusses each year, we can see being implemented shortly after.

This year's themes included the control of AI and information. Expect changes in both areas.

People who pretend the likes of the WEF and Bilderbergers are just jokes are doing the rest of us a disservice. They also need to understand that the public and private faces of such groups are very different.

In LDS terms we could understand thia as the difference between General Conference, and the private meetings where church policy is actually discussed.

Damp squib, you should stick with Trotsky under your bed.


----------------
> The main question is whether the likes of Aaron
> Sherinian (or Sharon Eubank) attended. Maybe
> Rasband as well, since he appears to be into all
> this too. If you have enough noney, you can buy
> your way in, and we know the church isn't short of
> filthy lucre.

What does it matter if the church bought the right to sit in the cheap seats like they did in their audience with the Pope? Do you think he paid them any attention? Are people with real power likely to cooperate with the people at the kiddie table?


-----------------
> There were effectively two WEF events going on.
> Firstly, the semi-public one you can buy tickets
> to, and which produces some photos and footage
> which are released to the general public.

Yep. And that's what the church would get: some photos and footage to show the Mormons. Just like their 15 minutes looking up at the pope.


-----------------
> secondly, the other meetings that take place
> completely privately and don't tend to get
> publicized.

Yep. But the church won't get access to those and it doesn't matter in any case since those things are covered in the press. Participants talk to reporters.

It's not as if the rich and powerful need Davos to communicate with one another. Their cell phones and Microsoft Teams work far better.


----------------
> (One of these was where North and
> South Korean leaders were able to meet. I suppose
> one could argue this was a positive thing, but
> they could do this there without angering the
> public and the military at home.)

I can find no indication that the Norks have been at Davos since 2015, when their invitations were revoked. It wouldn't matter either way, however, since Pyongyang and Seoul constantly talk in clandestine meetings in various Asian cities and are unlikely to invite attention by doing it again in the presence of John Kerry and Al Gore.


--------------------
> I wonder if the
> LDS leaders ever go to the private meetings?
> Maybe, maybe not.

The LDS church has zero expertise in the matters discussed at Davos. There is nothing they could add. To suggest otherwise is to overestimate dramatically the importance and competence of the LDS church.


----------------
> They do attend international
> interreligious meetings which serve a similar
> correlating purpose.

Sure. "Ecumenical conferences push a liberal agenda" --Trotsky's ghost, late at night from under the bed.


---------------
> Why would anyone "overestimate the Davos crowd"?
> It includes the world's major politicians meeting
> with big business away from democratic scrutiny.

Do you really think business leaders and politicians make their deals at Davos as opposed to quietly by phone or while on vacation in the Maldives?


-----------------
> That alone is a major conflict of interest. There
> is only one way to overestimate Davos, and that is
> to forget it is part of a much broader range of
> international meetings and communications. Some of
> these like COP and UN groups are very public but
> most aren't. But a lot of what Davos discusses
> each year, we can see being implemented shortly
> after.

There's the paranoia. There are dozens of places and ways important people can communicate. This is like your old vehemence about the War on Cash, devoid of any sense of how financial markets have evolved over the last three decades. Here too you are fixated on a system that hasn't conducted clandestine negotiations for decades.


-----------
> This year's themes included the control of AI and
> information. Expect changes in both areas.

Guess what. Those themes have been under discussion for years and changes have already been initiated. In a year, you'll look back and say "I told you so, they negotiated this at Davos," which will of course be false. Those deals were already done; nothing of significance is agreed in the glare of public scrutiny such as at Davos.


----------------
> People who pretend the likes of the WEF and
> Bilderbergers are just jokes are doing the rest of
> us a disservice. They also need to understand that
> the public and private faces of such groups are
> very different.

It is naive to assert that those people hold massive, well-publicized meetings to agree on secret agenda. The deals are done in private.


----------------
> In LDS terms we could understand thia as the
> difference between General Conference, and the
> private meetings where church policy is actually
> discussed.

That's precisely the point that you do not get! Davos is General Conference, it is not the "private meetings where. . . policy is actually discussed."

What is it that prevents you from seeing that?

1. They paid attention to ward gossip
2. They carried a Franklin Planner and wrote notes
3. Mission Presidents actually read the weekly mandatory letters from missionaries.
4. Bishops and stake presidents keep a folder on key members they wish to monitor. My bishop wrote down everything that was discussed during youth worthiness interviews. I couldn't perfectly recall what I had said in previous interviews as a youth, but he would glean what he had written to make it appear as though he was omnipotent.

Nor the prophets the prophecy they claim. E.g. COVID was a pretty big miss.

A nevermo perspective: these claims are laughable, why do they bother making them?

That was a book that really troubled me. It was clear the Mormon leaders were lying. Any idea of them having some integrity was destroyed. Even a Mormon detective on the case recognized that the the lies went all the way to the top. I read 3 books at the time about the Hofmann forgeries. I do not see how any Mormon could accept leaders have any degree of inspiration. They are frauds.

"I do not see how any Mormon could accept leaders have any degree of inspiration."

Tunnel vision. They don't believe the facts of the case. They are like people who believe OJ is innocent. At least the latter is more likely than the church being true.

Facts have very little to do with human beliefs, as much as we like to think they do.

Case study in discernment. Bright shiny wealthy up and comer in the stake gets called to be a bishop, then to stake HC, then stake president, then mission president of the Puerto Rico mission, and then quietly sent home early and exed a couple of months later. Turned out he was a serial adulterer going at least before he was a bishop. Seems he was caught trying to go all JS with his sister missionaries. Think about the number of discernment fails involved. Right up to the first presidency, as they are the ones who call personally call mission presidents. Discernment, not what I’ve seen.

Hey Mannaz,

'Bright shiny wealthy up and comer in the stake gets called to be a bishop, then to stake HC, then stake president, then mission president of the Puerto Rico mission'

This guys father was Phil Smartt, stake president in Chattanooga. He was a major factor in our disillusionment with Mormonism. He was a real ass. No compassion. Arrogant. Narcissist. Apparently the son was a duplicate of him.

That is the guy. I think the son raised all the father's attributes to the next level. I am not sure of the rules for the message board, so I left his name off. But this did get reported in the media, and the church released a statement in 2018 - events in the mission occurred 2013-2014. He goes by his nickname 'Lanney,' but his actual first name is priceless - "Philander" - add the 'er' to the end. ;-). More of 'extramarital' behavior, going way back, came to light but I've not seen any posts about that. I took a look again just now and there are quite a number of news articles and posts - some from sister missionaries who were there. The church went to great efforts to cover this up and keep it out of the news, alas, they were unsuccessful.


You probably know all this, but if others have interest here is a place to start.


https://universe.byu.edu/2018/04/27/mormon-church-kicks-out-man-who-supervised-young-women/

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/04/26/the-case-of-puerto-rico-when-the-mormon-church-promptly-removed-a-mission-president-who-deceived-and-victimized-young-female-missionaries/

When members of the Sugarhouse Cookies Ward were told of this event and then polled regarding their thoughts on 'spiritual discernment,' 74% chose to bare their testimonies, 22% heaped imprecations on the surveyors, and the remaining 4% quoted bible scriptures, the most popular being, "Jesus wept."


This issue was vaguely referred to in a book: 

"The ability of sinners to
deceive the leaders of the
church, and those with faith
in the church, is proof that
ghawd is kind and merciful,
and will shovel that love on
everyone, saint or sinner!"

      -Judic West,
      "How I Came to Love Sex,
       Drugs, & Rock'n Roll,"
       pg 409 ... Chevy

Cognitive dissonance. I think it is just too distressing for true believers to try to process it. I had an occasion, as I was leaving the church, to refer to this incident in explaining to a close relative how I cannot accept that JS or the current 15 are prophets, seers, and revelators. It is the first presidency that calls mission presidents. And this objective evidence just rolled off of him.

It is one of the reasons that I firmly believe that it is a fools errand to believe you can change another’s mind about the church.

The only good news to come out of this is that the church believed the women. That's rare enough.

...Don't think for an instant that church leaders/lawyers didn't consider shaming the Lady Missionaries in hopes of trying to cover the whole thing up.

And it is very likely that they hosed these young ladies down with their magnificent testimonies about how ghawd didn't want them to make waves by pursuing civil or criminal remedies.

"Ghawd will bless you if you don't sue his church..."

Their failures define tham as more significant than any benefits they claim.

Good point. More generally: their record.

Pick a few major events of the last 50 years and see how many they predicted. That's their record. Not real impressive for a "living prophet".

They spout feel good platitudes and say the same things that politicians and big business says. That's not spirituality.

Imagine announcing a temple in Russia three years before the main attack on Ukraine!

Someone OK’d a course about Taylor Swift for BYU…

Maybe they thought the course was going to be about John Taylor.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe they thought the course was going to be
> about John Taylor.

Maybe they can offer courses on Neil Young, Sam Smith, Willie Nelson and George Benson

after he knew I wasn't going back to church. He said I thought they were supposed to have discernment.

How many of us can think of how many times the leaders didn't have discernment in our own lives?? I gave my power over to the leaders and what a mess.

The ward needed a new cub scout leader. Bishop was on a discernment kick because the stake president had conveyed a story about calling an inactive member to a silly nothing calling~ ward program passer out person. And somehow this inspired decision reactivated a family of eight persons.

I was ward clerk whose only job in these 7am meetings was to provide the bishop with ward lists of adults who did not hold ward callings. I already knew to hold my tongue as the bishop seemed to wrestle with the task of calling in Bother ????? to serve in this important youth orientated calling.

It wasn't hard to do.

Choice A: Brother Logger had already served. He was pretty patient with kids and had not served for several years.

Choice B: Brother Statler has a scout age child and always goes to the campouts and activities.

Choice C: Brother Tired was a long time scout at heart. He was getting old, but could serve in a pinch.

Bishop said that he would pray about it. Bishop never discussed the matter. He acted alone by calling Brother Wildcat. Now Wildcat was in his 40s was was a deacon because he last attended church as a 13 year old.

I still remember the murmurs during sacrament when he was sustained. No one knew who he was. I knew him because he owned a shop where my parents had solicited him to fix some electrical problems. Wildcat smoked like a chimney and was downing a beer when I accompanied them to pick up the car. The family car reeked of cigarettes for week.

The guy didn't show up for scouts for a month. He finally showed up for a scout meeting with a twelve pack of beer and a cigarette in hand.

Bishop eneded up releasing Wildcat and called Statler instead.