Should Freedom of Religion have Reasonable Limits?
XMO Resources* projects Benefit the victims of Religious Abuse of Power.
Will blasphemous usurpation of the name of God and religious abuse of power find support in Federal Court? Should it? Should freedom of religion have reasonable limits?
From the Doctrine and Covenants §121 of the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we find this paradoxical insight:
34) Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35) Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson-
36) That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled or handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37) That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Curiously, the leadership of the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (former Mormon Church) has engaged in deliberate obfuscation of the truth about their willful misrepresentation of the historical facts that underlie their claims to unique power and authority (the aforementioned "priesthood") as the exclusive agents of Jesus Christ on earth, for generations.
Now, in the age of the internet, the leadership of the Mormon Church have lost control of the flow of information revealing the truth of their misrepresentations and the glaring differences between the factual history of the Church and the official narrative that has been professed and promoted at their behest and under their direction and control.
In 2013 a confidential "Faith Crisis Report" was compiled and delivered to the leadership of the Mormon "Church", documenting the severity of the human suffering caused by the aforementioned deceitfulness. The report was leaked and has been distributed liberally on the dark, and not so dark web.
From the report's own prologue, we learn that from October 2011 until August 2013, an unpaid team of scholars, strategists, and other volunteers conducted research, synthesized findings, and developed a number of strategic recommendations aimed at helping LDS leaders better understand and more compassionately minister to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a faith crisis, meaning "members experiencing severe emotional turmoil resulting from discovering Church
history facts that do not align with the traditional narrative of the Church."
Predictably, and in shameful irony, the Church leadership, while requiring that their members revere them as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators" seek to avoid responsibility and "cover their own sins" by using their "priesthood authority" to engage legal representation to argue that outright lies and abuse are constitutionally protected free exercise of religion under the first amendment. And so goes the nobility of "modern day Prophets".
It is expected that they will spare themselves the embarrassment of denying the reality of their historical misrepresentations. It is unlikely that their intensely motivated denial renders them blind to the preponderance of readily accessible evidence on that subject and the probability that the attorney for the plaintiff, Kay Burningham, a graduate of BYU's own J. Rueben Clark, College of Law and a history major is unaware of where to find it. The authors of the Faith Crisis Report most certainly found it and based their report on the emotional turmoil resulting from its discovery.
Mormonthink.com, arguably the internet's favorite repository for in depth discussion and analysis of the absurdity of Mormonism's historical representations in view of plainly discoverable facts, is referenced in the same Faith Crisis Report. The report encourages the Church Leadership to get past the attitude of "faith crisis deniers" and face the glaring reality of the problems caused by misrepresentation of historical facts under the auspices of "Church Correlation" directed, ultimately by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency of the Church.
It seems likely that the Church's go-to law firm, Kirton & McConkie, has also offered some advice to the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency on the subject of their exposure. Earlier this year the Church announced the closure of Salt Lake's famous Temple Square to begin in December and last for 4 years. Extensive remodeling is expected. Access to the exhibits displaying Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates have already been closed.
Also, this year, Church President Nelson announced to the world that God no longer wanted the Mormon Church to be called by that name. What next? Will the Book of Mormon be denounced as the "cornerstone of the faith" as professed for generations? Will the discredited Book of Abraham be removed from the canonized scriptures of the Church? Can the Church distance itself fast enough from its lies and misrepresentations and abuses of clear headed thinkers who noticed them to spare itself the karmic justice described in its own Doctrine and Covenants resulting from not having a scrap of credibility left in a modern world? (Video by Flackerman click here)
In view of the forgoing, it seems a reasonable interpretation that the Church's own Doctrine and Covenants section quoted above holds that the leadership of the Church's authority has been withdrawn for the reasons clearly stated. In 1974, Elder Gene R. Cook, then a "General Authority" from the "Quorum of Seventy" of the Church taught young missionaries that the power of someone's priesthood could appropriately be measured by the amount of obedience he commanded from others without compulsory means. An interesting concept.
Can the current leadership of the Church reasonably expect remaining members to obey the law of tithing, under the circumstances? Can they reasonably expect current members to be truthful in Bishop interviews about whether they do pay a full tithe? Why tell the truth to these people? Wouldn't following their example apply here?
We are a serious group of people who are dedicating time, talents, and resources to making a serious difference by confronting injustice, corruption, and abuse of power and religious authority, and raising public awareness that such abuses have serious consequences that matter and contribute greatly to human suffering. We can make a meaningful difference with your help!