In response to a question I received on my last post, I sent the following:
Yes, the essay is posted on LDS.ORG under the heading of topics. However the whole point is that posting flawed human history on a church website does not mean that what it claims is true, or that the sources are credible. It is merely an essay by so called, nameless, Church scholars who are expressing opinions based on how they interpret history. Church produced products do not all come with the imprimatur of the mind and will of God, unless canonized and confirmed by the Holy Spirit to be such. Elder Packer on occasion has taken the Church historian's office to task, for their weakness in trying to elevate flesh reliance to the level of revelation.
For example for years the Church produced Seminary and Institute manuals referred to the Lord of the Vineyard in Zenos’ Allegory as being Jesus Christ and the servant a prophet. From my very first spirit directed reading of that powerful allegory, I always felt the Lord of the Vineyard was actually God the Father and the servant Jesus Christ. My wife and I would discuss it often and she was always hesitant to have me express my view since the “Church produced” manuals taught otherwise. Thankfully, in 2003 Elder Holland clarified the issue with a sweet talk entitled the Grandeur of God, in which he teaches that the Lord is indeed the Father. Since that talk, we have noted that the manuals have adjusted that teaching. Here is Elder Holland’s Talk:
It is a weakness of Mormon culture to want to believe that everything a prophet or apostle claims, or anything the Church publishes, is absolute truth, but while that remains a common belief, it has really never been the doctrine. Prophets, apostles, etc are humans, and are subject to opinions and errors. The only time they are infallible in their declarations is if they are speaking the word of God as directed by His spirit and confirmed to the hearer by the Holy Ghost. Elder Christofferson gave a great talk about that in April Conference 2012, with regard to Brigham Young preaching a fiery sermon in the morning only to change the entire thing in the afternoon, admitting that he had been speaking as a man earlier. Here is that talk.
The whole Salamander letter fiasco illustrates the point. Many in the church including apostles, had accepted or assumed as authentic, items of history verified by the experts of the day, and had published them, or made commentaries about them, trying to explain them or justify them, only to discover in later years they were, not withstanding the opinions of experts, complete forgeries. Elder Oaks, in a CES Symposium talk, (the same talk in which he tries to explain a possible interpretation of the then still credible Salamander Letter), gives some great counsel on how to take in and understand church history, the bottom line of his remarks was to take it all with a grain of salt and rely in the end ONLY upon revelation. Here is an alleged copy of that talk and also a later talk he gave with regard to the whole issue. Both are instructive to the current history based and flesh reliant claims about plural marriage and Joseph Smith:
Hope this helps..... thanks for asking!
Years ago while attending BYU and suffering from indoctrination by some BYU professors and others who in the spirit of 2 Nephi 9: 28-29 imagined their scholarship and historical acumen far exceeded the need for the Holy Spirit, I became aware of the popularity of such a group and labeled them as the Mormon Intelligentsia. Basically they are cultural Mormons, who distrust the spirit and who have come to rely upon the arm of the flesh, particularly their own. They prefer a learned treatise to the burning bosom, and look down upon any who would testify or use the spirit as evidence to support their claims. Such flesh reliant psudo-saints exist at many levels in the church, and feed upon any controversy or claims, which allow them to pontificate their viewpoint, accentuated with revisionist history.
In spite of Elder Packers warnings, they continue to rise to the forefront. During the printing of the Joseph Smith papers, I took them to task on Amazon, only to be declared a heretic, for pointing out their flaws. What made them angry was my use of the Spirit to point out the unimpeachable truths about Joseph Smith, the Danites, the Missouri persecutions etc, which caused their flesh based reasoning and “historical” claims to fall apart. But the false claims persist because so many, who quench the spirit, or who like the people in the children’s story Charlotte’s Web, adopt a lemming mentality that it must be true if it is in writing” are so easily deceived. Such fact brings joy to academia, and shame of the true followers of Jesus Christ. The same false historical claims that plagued the Joseph Smith papers have also found their way unto essays posted on LDS.ORG. However, that does NOT change the fact that they remain based in flawed human history. Revisionist history remains revisionist no matter where it is portrayed, and simply posting an essay on LDS.ORG is NOT equivalent to making flawed history into absolute or Gospel truth. The same holds truth with the alleged plural marriages of Joseph Smith. I recently received this EMAIL from a concerned saint who thankfully truly gets it.
“Hi!! So I'm sure you heard about the latest polygamy essays getting on cnn and in the news everywhere now and the church's response. It is all over my newsfeed and what bugs me is that the one thing everyone agrees on is that these essays are true. The progressive say they are true and Joseph was wrong (immoral), the moderates say the essays are true and Joseph was mistaken, the conservative mormons say the essays are true but it must be all from God so Joseph was still in the right. But nobody questions the essays!!!!!! It's like we are now so sure prophets are fallible but now history is infallible! Anyways, I've been doing my own investigation and I am more annoyed at the essays than ever. When you read the sources it is all SO wishy washy. Ex: the sword and angel account, nothing of that came from Joseph but was "remembered" 20-30 years after the event would have happened from people other than Jospeh obviously. And then the essay makes it to sound like it absolutely happened. Then the Fanny Alger account, read those sources and there is NOTHING from Joseph, Emma, Fanny, or Fanny's family! Just the gossipy towns people! Even the historians admit that! But everyone talks about it like they were there and it happened! It's so aggervating and I think those essays are deceptive and it's really bothering me bc so may people are being deceived! “
I strongly recommend that any who want to know the truth about Joseph Smith recognize what this wise Sister points out and set aside the flawed methodologies employed by the flesh reliant, and seek truth from God, by revelation. That is the only truth that will, as Jesus Christ declared, set you free!
BTW in case you didn’t realize it, the Salamander letter, declared by Academia to be authentic, was at long last found to be a forgery………If we are to learn anything from history, maybe it should be from Mark Hoffman’s?
A recent opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune with regard to the essay about plural marriage and the prophet Joseph, recently posted on the Church's website, reveals the hypocrisy and fallacies attendant to those who rely upon the flesh, particularly their own, and who... though wise in their own sight....remain in error not withstanding the touting of a "Ph.D" (2 Nephi 9:28)
1. For example, the author states:"I’m encouraged by the church’s recent essay series on complex history issues and grateful for their progress toward transparency.
It is a self serving assumption that the purpose of what she calls the "church's essays" are to move from secrecy to transparency. Real transparency comes only in and though the light of Christ and has existed in the church since the beginning. Those enlightened by the Holy Spirit, (as opposed to walking by the light of their own fire), can recognize the absolute truths with regard to all that has occurred within the restored gospel. The essays mentioned are much more likely an attempt of historians to appeal to the flesh based and to help them past the walls that their own arrogance have built up based upon false histories or other flawed data...the ultimate purpose being to give them a chance to at least consider other points of view, so that in time they may come to embrace the only valid methodology to absolute truth.... revelation. That is a far different thing than "progressing toward transparency" as the author suggests.
2. The author's work with "rehabilitating sex offenders" might be a commendable thing, (though there is still a large body of opinion that such offenders are beyond "rehabilitation") and that service may provide her some insights into those suffering from addiction or other mental or spiritual disorders, and even wrong choices, that lead them into that lifestyle. However, to project the actions and mindsets of such persons upon all humans, is a fallacy of logic, and just another example of the defense mechanism of projection. Truly spirit led and presently enlightened servants of God, will not engage in such vile conduct contrary to that spirit, no matter how many essays they read. Spirit inspired leaders will, if attendant, know who not to call into positions that might jeopardize innocent youth. Spirit directed parents will know what actions to take and what warnings to give to preserve their children. Youth who are led by the spirit of Christ, will not be deceived by the flawed and perverted actions of perpetrators, who act contrary to that light. The real protection for the youth is to teach them to avoid the flesh based methodologies like those employed by the author, and rather to encourage them to embrace revelation and direction by the spirit of Christ. It is the flesh based that can be deceived and harmed by those in authority, because their faith is based in false understandings of authority, church position, human reason, science, self deceit, tradition, etc and not in revealed truth. In fact, it is the author's basis in flesh based data, that if adopted by the youth will destroys their ability to recognize evil at the outset. The physical senses and human reason can be deceived, but never the Holy Spirit. Many are the youth who knew immediately when they were heading for danger, because of the warnings of the spirit, while without that sensitivity, and the faith to follow it, they would have been victimized.
3.The real tragedy in the opinion piece is that one who claims to be familiar with the "grooming patterns" of sexual abusers, by her very article and suggestions actually facilitates one of the most subtle of those grooming patterns, which is the penchant of abusers to cause the victim to distrust every other external source including; Bishop's, Youth Leaders, Teachers. etc. in order for the perpetrator to consolidate their power, and decrease the likelihood of detection.
Now in response to her proposed options:
1) The LDS scriptures do NOT illustrate that inspired prophets make mistakes. What they do illustrate is that when acting as men, the prophets are flawed, weak and yes subject to mistakes. However, when acting as prophets, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and in accordance with the commandments of God, they are never flawed, and their commands and directives, as affirmed by the Holy Spirit are ALWAYS reliable. Accordingly, if the Prophet Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriage, the spirit will confirm that he only did so as directed by God and under His almighty command, and so his actions were not in error. He was a moral and virtuous man, and since that is an absolute truth, then any flawed human histories or opinions to the contrary may be rejected as such.
2) Any secrecy involved with the church's practice of plural marriage, was based on the sacred nature of the activity (not unlike the temple ordinances today, which are often claimed by the unenlightened to be secret, but known by the spirit lead to actually be sacred) and there was nothing nefarious about it, though it serves the apostate agenda to claim or infer such. Joseph's actions were in harmony with God's instructions, and it is purely human fallacy to attempt to paint him as deceiving Emma. A clear and spirit lead reading of the Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear that such was not the case, no matter the flawed claims of revisionist histories.
3-4) Her claims with regard to what the girls who the prophet allegedly married, thought, is pure conjecture, based on the flawed reliance on revisionist history with a healthy dose of wishful thinking. Such is the result of the author's personal life which is clearly directed by her reason, and devoid of the spirit, and which leads her to project her same mentality upon those young women. The fact is that no matter what Joseph said to them, his teachings must be considered in total, (as opposed to human created snippets of alleged history) and supported by the Holy Spirit. Thus each alleged wife would have been taught the principles of personal revelation, and they would have had the ability to discern if the prophet's requests were actually in accordance with God's will. It is pure flesh reliance, that forces one to believe that external stimulus (i.e. claims from a prophet) are equal to the loss of agency. That simply is not the case. All true prophets and the God and Christ that they serve, teach individual accountability, and the power of personal revelation. Thus it is the author's misplaced reliance upon and promotion of the arm of the flesh, that actually endangers the youth, rather than providing them with the tools to know absolute truth for themselves. The flesh reliant are the only ones who can be deceived by false prophets.
5) What will help the youth tremendously is to teach them to rely upon the Holy Spirit, which will tell them immediately if they are being misled by a priesthood leader. However, given that such an approach is being taken first......the author's suggestion to make clear to youth the obvious truth about God and his servants not being justified in inappropriate relations, would be fine and good. However, the authors penchant to always equate sex with plural marriage indicates a deep and troubling bias, which colors her previous comments.
Finally, male priesthood leaders who conduct interviews, under the keys they hold and the direction of the Holy Spirit do not need warnings or changes in policy. The perversion that lingers in the mind of one who suggest such a thing indicates a total misunderstanding of priesthood and key holding (but helps us see why she is on the board of the apostate Ordain Women movement.) One would wonder if she only prays in private to Heavenly Mother, or requires that her children not pray to God unless a female is present in the room with them. Perhaps she would suggested to her children that Mary should have rejected Gabriel's visit, since he was a man, and was talking to her alone about sensitive sexual topics. It is reverse sexism to suppose that all males, simply because they are males, are perverse or incapable of teaching true doctrines, or hearing confessions, or inspired giving counsel with regard to sexual issues. God has ordained them as key holders, and as such , when functioning righteously in that office, they are entitled to know all God knows on that issue, and to teach what the Lord would have them teach. While it is true that some key holders may be fallen leaders, having women interview the youth does not resolve the issue, in fact it is another indication of sexism on the part of the author to assume that only males are predators, and the issues can be revolved by having females do the interviews...as if there was never a female predator.
Even more dangerous is the author's suggestions and spirit which tend to build distrust in the heart of youth toward their Church leaders. Many is the perpetrating father, facilitated by the acquiescing mother, or the perpetrating mother, facilitated by the acquiescing Father, or even worse, parents who are both perpetrators, who would love to erode their victims' trust in their priesthood leaders, because those leaders might otherwise discover, in spirit led interviews, the tragic abuse taking place in the home. Trusted and spirit led priesthood leaders are sometimes the only ones that a youth may feel comfortable speaking to and seeking help from. Imagine the abused child sitting next to the abusing mother as the inspired Bishop asks how things are in the home. In such instances the pretense of safety from the Bishop, actually leads to the loss of it at the hands of the mother. Eroding trust or casting aspersions upon such leaders only destroys another method of escape for those youth in need. Obviously as with all the preceding, the answer is to teach and fortify our children with the Holy Spirit and as parents to make sure we are also in tune. Therein lies safety, not in reliance upon reverse sexist policies, but in reliance upon the Holy Ghost.
All in all this article was just another indicator that the flesh reliant, will always seek to quench the Holy Spirit. That is simply an essential element to their reliance upon a flawed methodology. The tragedy is that in accordance with their personal bias and inordinate focus on a single issue "ordain women" they actually suggest things that could cause great harm the innocent.
The avowed feminist and one time advocate of Ordain Women, Amy, published a list of things she "did not understand" in the New Expositor (Exponent). Her article and my reponses which follow indicate the true flaw of the self-deified, they don't understand becasue they don't want to....
AMY: I do not understand how gender roles are so central to the Gospel when I always thought the Gospel was the good news that Christ died for my sins, that He was resurrected, and that through Him, I may live again.
Truth: Christ's atonement was universal and infinite, which means that it makes possible the exaltation and eternal life of all of God's children without regard to gender, which is in fact proof of the truth that while we do have, and will have, different roles for all eternity, we are nevertheless equal before God. What Amy should understand it that the same source that teaches her the good news of the gospel, teaches the eternal place of gender in God's plan. It is convenient for her agenda to pick and choose the doctrines she wants to believe, even when they come from the same source, but that is neither honest nor helpful.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that tells me that my greatest calling is to become a wife and mother when I remembered Jesus telling the woman in the crowd that it is not motherhood, but hearing and obeying the word of Christ, that makes me blessed (Luke 11: 27-28).
Truth: To advocate that Jesus' words in the verse quoted somehow diminishes motherhood is intellectually and spiritually dishonest, and reveals the contextual ineptness that plagues both feminists and Anti-Mormons alike. They simply cannot understand truth, because they ignore context. What Jesus was actually teaching is that the physical act of giving birth is not sufficient, but rather the key portion of the role of motherhood is to nurture and teach obedience. The irony is that Amy has heard the word of God, as taught by him and his prophets, but along with many suffering under the culture of envy, she is NOT keeping it, thus going against the very charge she asks about here. Motherhood, when studied in spiritual and thematic context across the spectrum of God's holy word is clearly an eternal, dignified and holy calling and role, but that role loses all power and efficacy, if the role keeper, seeks to place her will above God's and fails to obey.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that tells me the greatest use for my time and talents is in the home when it was Jesus who taught me the greater part was to hear his word and to sit as his feet in preparation to teach it to others (Luke 10: 42).
Truth: Jesus has delegated his mission to teach to his children on earth. Today we sit at the feet of Jesus when we sit at the feet of his disciples who teach his words and ways. The logic here defies Christ's divine commission, no need for disciples to go and teach the world, Jesus will simply do it all himself. This places Amy with Thomas, who perhaps has yet to hear the savior's mild rebuke ; "Blessed are those "who have not seen, and yet believe". Mothers are the representative of Jesus on the earth. A righteous, holy mother, who has cast aside envy and who understands the divine role, will do more to teach others of the true Christ than any other source. The child, who sits at the feet of such a mother who knows, and who has embraced her divine role, truly is sitting at the Savior's feet and preparing to teach the gospel.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel where I'm told that my role is separate but equal from a man's when the scriptures teach me there is no male or female in the Lord (Galatians3:28; 2 Nephi 26:33).
Truth: Amy's interpretation here is simply ridiculous, but again evidences the flaws of those who without spirit or context, try to use snippets of scripture to prove their point. Paul was not teaching the lack of gender in heaven, see 1 Corinthians 11:11, Hebrews 12:9, but that Gender is not a bar to unity with him, which harkens back to the truth that all are alike unto God, and if baptized may be one with Christ. The scriptures are filled with examples that indicate that divine roles will and do exist. Father, Son, Mercy as feminine, justice as masculine, are just a few examples. The Scripture from Nephi simply proves that God is not a respecter of persons, and that male and females are equally loved before God. It in no way indicates that there is no role or gender in heaven. Had she been more interested in learning truth, rather than trying to make her opinion truth by the wresting of scripture, she might have read D & C 138:39, the glorious vision which affirms, among other things, that gender is eternal.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that was first proclaimed by a woman chosen to act as the witness to the resurrection, when 2,000 years later, I am unable to witness the baptism of a mortal in His name.
Truth: Mary's witness of Jesus was NOT an ordinance, but a gift. Hundreds of others both men and women were also witnesses of the resurrection, just as thousands of men and women witness today of the same resurrection, and thousands of his daughters who truly do understand the Gospel, stand as witnesses of God at all times, in all things, and in all places,
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that tells me that my uterus defines my role with God when I was always believed God looked upon the heart, the same organ that beats in men and women alike (1 Samuel 16:7)
Truth: It is only the unenlightened and spiritually empty who think that womanhood, or motherhood, is defined by physical organs. It is sillier still to assume that the heart, as referred to in the scripture meant David's organ??? If that were the case then Samuel could have chosen any man in Israel to be king, because they all had hearts. Just as God clearly refers to the spirit of man in such scriptures, so to eternal motherhood is an spiritually understood and eternal concept, powerful, holy and sacred, that is beyond the power of the flesh bound to even grasp, which is why envy lives so deep in their souls.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that teaches me I cannot approach God in my own right
but only through my husband whom I hearken and obey.
Truth: The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as understood by the spirit, teaches no such thing, though it serves the purpose of those who would "be" God rather than follow him, to claim so.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that claims to follow Jesus's teaching to leave the 99 to go after the one and then excommunicates the one, casting her out of the fold all together, after refusing to even have a conversation.
Truth: Just as Amy has contextually twisted the smattering of scripture so to she presents her private view of what really happened with the excommunication, something she cannot possibly know, but which she has adopted because it suits her preconceived notions. It also demonstrates a deplorable lack of understanding of Church discipline. Those who understand church discipline
understand that the process is exactly that, seeking the one lost sheep in and effort to save and redeem them. Mosiah Chapter 26 provides the true picture of what Amy seeks here to distort.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that teaches the importance of two-parent families, that we have loving Heavenly Parents, and then denies their daughters and sons access to the Mother.
Truth: There is nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that denies them access to their Heavenly Mother. In fact it is only the Gospel of Jesus Christ that teaches she even exists.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that teaches me to come to know truth "by study and also by faith," but then treats me as a cancer when I study the more troubling and difficult aspects of our faith and history and am, unsurprisingly, troubled by them.
Truth: The past demonstrated penchant to twist and distort gospel truths indicates that what Amy was doing was NOT seeking truth by study and by faith, but rather adopting what she wanted to be truth, and then seeking to enforce her private and flawed views as truth, by the laying on of contextually altered scripture. It is not the sincere searching that is a cancer. It is the attempt to force one's opinion on others as truth, by distorting scriptures and teachings, and doing so under the false guise of searching, that is the cancer.
AMY: I do not understand a Gospel that teaches that God's ways are higher than our ways, but then practices tribalism and exclusivism in relation to truth claims and upholding the status quo, which is certainly a practice of the "natural man."
Truth: The fact is that it is God's ways, and his thoughts, (which are implemented and taught by His Church), that Amy dislikes, because they are not her ways. She is the source of tribalism and the one who is seeking to elevate the natural man to the level of God. In so doing she must project her own actions and flaws upon God, otherwise her efforts are in vain. It is classic self-deification and its results are seen throughout this thread. They also explain why she cannot understand, because she does not really want to!.
There are two rising cultures in our society that are destroying the moral fiber of our country and plunging us into the abyss of moral relativism. One is the Culture of Envy, the narcissistic viewpoint that any gain by any other person, in any form, somehow equates to a loss for me. The other is the Culture of Entitlement, which is also based in narcissism, and conveys the principle that one is entitled to be served, cared for and given whatever they want, by
Charlie Brown's Sister Sally, is perfect example. One of our family's favorite quotes from the Christmas Special is when the obviously materialistic little lady, is writing to Santa and asking for cash. When her total misunderstanding of the true meaning of the season is challenged by her brother she cries out with the entitlement dripping claim "All I want is what's coming to me, all I want is my fair share" The time was that most people would see the humor in that situation, but those days are gone. It seems clear that today, those who decry the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, would be totally in Sally's corner, advocating for her to get what's coming to her, her entitlement to cash from Santa, and in the specific denominations she asked for.
The advocates for being able to force employers to provide contraception which the employer feels is immoral, have many self centered reasons for promoting such an unjust result, but they all seems to forget or intentionally overlook some salient deeper points:
1. Employees of Hobby Lobby are just that, employees. No one forced them to apply for a job there, and once the position was offered no one forced them to accept it, there are many other jobs, even in the craft store industry, for the discontent employees to seek out. Hobby Lobby also closes on Sunday for religious reasons. Should a Muslim, Seventh-day Adventist or Jewish employee be able to sue the company and force them to stay open on Sunday. If employers must cater to the moral positions of the employees, then why can't a Jewish employee force Hobby Lobby to stop playing Christian music in their stores, or to stop selling Christmas items, because it offends their sensitivities? The bottom line is that the Supreme Court finally got one right. If the employee wants contraceptives they are free to purchase them with their own money, or to seek employment with a firm that offers what they want. If the employee is dissatisfied with the health care coverage, they can and should quit and go find it elsewhere.
2. If employees are entitled to some specific form of health care from their employers, then were does that entitlement stop. Why can't millions of employees who are now working only part time, because their employer is trying to escape the destructive costs of the Obama care mandate, by having their employees work less hours, then turn and raise the same access to health care issues the Hobby Lobby employees are claiming. If they are morally entitled to contraceptives, on the basis of being entitled to health care, then why can't part time employees claim the same entitlement and force their employers to provide health care also?....after all the exclusion of contraceptives only, is a far lesser thing than exclusion of any had all healthcare coverage.
Once entitlement mentality invades the workforce, what other entitlements can be forced from employers on dubious moral grounds?. For example could an employee with 12 children force the employer to give them a raise, based on a concept that they are entitled to make a living wage, which in turn would be much more than they are being paid given their family size? Such an employee could make all the same moral arguments as the Hobby Lobby contraception demanders, and would be just as morally wrong.
Why God Needs Advice:
The latest from the New Expositor (Exponent), "Why the Church Needs Feminists" is classic example of self deification and would more appropriately be titled, "Why God needs council and advice from his flawed and biased children." Of course the answer to both titles is that He does not.
The posters quote: " This lesson came from the top-down, most notably during General Conference. In the dearth of female speakers,…" reveals her total lack of spiritual understanding and her application of the main premise of self-deification, which is...."I know better than God". It seems clear from her quote, and the whole article, that had Jackie been present in the Scared Grove, she would have said something to the effect of "That's nice Heavenly Father, but can you send someone with the female perspective?" or would have shut down at the sermon on the mount turning off the sweet messages of the Messiah, because Jesus was a man, and, well ......subject to male bias.
After trashing the doctrine of the family and the priesthood, the poster follows the typical apostate pattern and says;" I support the doctrine of the family and the priesthood;…" which means she supports her private interpretation of those doctrines, while rejecting God's intention with regard to them. Then while also rejecting the perfect unity that those doctrines teach concerning husbands and wives, she claims to be emulating Jesus. It reminds me of my best friend telling me he was "just like" a famous football player, and when I looked at him with the "Yeah, right "look he laughed and said I have two eye, two ears, two arms, etc. It was funny then, but Jackie's post demonstrates that her character is decidedly un-christilke, and the Christ she claims to emulate, is a creature of her own flesh based creation.
The truth is that the last thing the true and essential daughters of God need, is a self deified pretender, who seeks to supplant true doctrine with her own lesser versions, which appeals to the carnal woman, and rejects the spirit. No, as with Thomas Marsh, she will find out that the church and God can get along very well without her, and they will lose nothing by her apostasy, but oh what she will lose. The truth is that God's true follwers would be better off without her radical feminism, which may provide the basis for her attempts to remake God in her own image, but which is worthless to those who truly love God and are content to have him be their God and King.