Previously: My Near Death Experience

On a Friday afternoon several months ago, Connie and I got a surprise visit from our ward's new sister missionaries.  They were just assigned to the area and had decided to go through the ward list and introduce themselves to the members.  They were delighted to find us welcoming and accommodating, and we enjoyed a wonderful visit together.  Connie and I both shared our testimonies with these pleasant young girls and they seemed very glad to be in the company of a couple who appeared to love the gospel as much as they.  We were asked if they might be permitted to come by again, and we said absolutely, please do.

One of them pulled out her calendar (which I could see had no entries in it) and asked if Monday was too soon.  "No, not at all, we'd love to see you again as soon as it's convenient for you,"  I replied, so a time was settled on for them to return in three days.  Before they left I asked if I could offer a prayer, which seemed to impress them because usually they have to ask if the family would mind if they offered a prayer.  I sent them off with a heartfelt blessing for God's good will to shine upon them and their endeavors. It was a very nice visit. Connie and I, who rarely have any visitors, had just made two very good new friends.

When the Monday appointment time came and went, I called the number they had left me and was told apologetically that something had come up that forced them to have to miss our appointment. "No problem, I assured her, let's reschedule."  The nice sister seemed flummoxed for a moment, then told me she would check their calendar and get back to me.

She never did.  I left messages twice in the weeks since, but never got a return call from either her or her companion. What I suspect happened was that at a correlation meeting at church that Sunday, they mentioned their happy meeting with the Watermans, and someone in authority likely warned them to steer clear of us. 

Getting dumped by the missionaries shouldn't have surprised me.  More than a year ago my home teacher, who I considered a good friend, told me he had been reassigned, but that I would be given a new home teacher right away.  I never was.

Back then I was still attending church once or twice a month, and after sacrament meeting I would always ask my former home teacher, "Hey Sean, where's that replacement home teacher I was promised?" Sean always assured me he would check with the bishop and find out what was the holdup.  I emailed the bishop myself twice asking for home teachers, using the private email account the bishop had given me personally two years before in case there was anything-"anything at all"- I might ever need.

The only reason I ever used that email address was to ask for home teachers.  The reason for that is because although we no longer find it rewarding to attend Sunday meetings, it's very important to me that I have the opportunity to pitch in if there are any service projects going on, or if someone needs help moving.  I wanted to be kept informed of what's going on so I can assist.

I never got a response to those emails, and when I finally asked the bishop in person why he hadn't responded, he brushed me off with, "Oh, I hardly ever read my emails."  I asked him again at that time about getting home teachers, but he changed the subject.

Connie's visiting teachers, an enthusiastic couple who used to stop by for regular visits without fail, always with a plate of cookies, suddenly stopped coming at all without a word.

This is what happens when you get branded as apostate. The funny thing is, if we were a couple of Jack-Mormons who had a daily coffee habit, members of this ward would be falling all over themselves to fellowship us and get us to come back.  But because I write this blog, we are anathema.

We could have used some of that fellowship recently when I was near death with pneumonia and Connie was experiencing similar distress.  Our 27- year-old car finally breathed its last a couple of weeks ago, and it would have been nice if there had been someone from the ward we could call to ask for a ride to the doctor.  Heck, we would have appreciated just a kind word from someone in the ward who was willing to pretend to care.  But there is no one in our ward who calls or drops by anymore.  As Connie put it recently, "Face it-We're poison."

"Go Faster! Rock and Connie are RIGHT BEHIND US!!"

Better Get Your Cootie Shots
The irony is that these days Connie and I are both more devoted to the faith than at any other point in our lives. We spend a great deal of time immersed in gospel study. We revere Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, embrace the Book of Mormon as literally true, and adhere to the doctrines of the Restoration.  So what makes us different from most of the other members of the church?

What makes us different is our resolve to put Christ first and foremost in our lives, which requires putting Him before the institutional Church. As other uncorrelated Mormons will attest, that is a radical position to take in this curious era where "Follow the Prophet" is the new Church slogan.

In just the past year or two, thousands of devout latter-day saints have come to learn to their chagrin that faith in Christ is no longer the first principle of the gospel -not if they hope to remain members in good standing.  Desiring to follow Christ first has gotten a lot of members in hot water. To be a valid member of the church today, you must confess undying loyalty to the Church itself, or more specifically, to its leaders.  Just ask Will Carter, who received a letter from the Church's attorneys warning him to never step foot on Church property again or he could be arrested for trespassing.  That means he can't attend church, or even drive his car into the parking lot to drop someone else off.  He can't tour BYU or visit temple square.  Presumably he would be arrested if he showed up at the City Creek Mall.

You would think Brother Carter had committed some act of vandalism, or disrupted a Sunday School class by lobbing a hand grenade into the room just prior to the closing prayer.  But no. What Will Carter did was suggest that, according to scripture, there may be other prophets on the earth today serving God in addition to those holding high office in the LDS Church.

But that's not actually what got Brother Will banished from Church property. That was just what got him excommunicated. At least that's the reason as near as he can tell, because Will never was told the official reason for his excommunication.  One high priest told him privately afterward, "What you haven't learned is that you need to bow and kneel to the sceptre of authority."

This would be an unbelievable admission were similar scoldings not also being delivered to other devoted members in wards all over the Church right now.  The "sin" is often delineated as "refusing to obey priesthood authority."  I hear from members who are being threatened with discipline all the time, whether it's a young mother admitting to giving her own child a blessing in her own home; or someone asking a simple question such as, "if the current President of the Church is said to be a prophet, seer, and revelator the same as Joseph Smith, why doesn't he ever present revelations to the church the way Joseph Smith did?"

Will Carter was excommunicated for wondering aloud about stuff like that, but the thing that got him banished for life from Church property was for was telling a semi-active ward member who happened to be female that he loved her and would be glad to help her out if she needed anything.

Crazy, I know.  After failing repeatedly to get his stake president to tell him the precise reason for his excommunication, Will took to the blogosphere and wrote about the trouble he was having getting a straight answer.  Likely because of the embarrassment Will was causing the Church by going public, his local leaders then latched onto this totally innocent statement he made to someone he merely offered assistance to, so now they could paint him as morally debased.  I kid you not.  As Ted "Theodore" Logan famously observed to Bill S. Preston, Esquire; strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

Want to hear the punchline? The woman in his ward Will was supposed to have greatly offended never complained about it to anyone, wasn't affected, never knew she was at the center of this storm, and likely never knew her name was involved in any controversy whatsoever.  Oblivious to it all, a few days later she dropped by Will's house to ask if he and his wife wouldn't mind babysitting her child.

Full disclosure: I've told countless women in various wards I belonged to that I love them, often right there in the chapel foyer with my wife present and within earshot.  And Connie has told persons who happened to be the opposite of her sex the same thing.  No wonder we're on the outs! Good thing neither of us followed examples given in the bible and fell on these people's necks and kissed them, or we'd really be in trouble.

Thus Spake Zarathustra -Or Some Area Assistant
I believe in the doctrine of direct revelation.  Growing up in this church, I was rightly taught that what separates us from every other Christian denomination was that we do not rely upon the opinions of men for our beliefs.  The things we are to consider doctrinal are only those things that are revealed directly from God through his prophet.  I also believe that through the prophet Joseph Smith, God set the pattern for how revelations were to be conveyed.  That pattern shows that while revelations are received through His prophet, in every valid instance, they are delivered in the voice of the Lord -using the exact words the Lord used to convey his message to the prophet.  His voice-His words.  Every time we hear a message from the Lord it should be prefaced by some variant of "thus saith the Lord." As I wrote in a recent post "Not Quite The Same":

Those revelations God introduced in the Book of Commandments provide us a template for recognizing when someone's voice is to be considered the sameas God's, and when it is not. Since "the word of God" consists of the words that God speaks, the person claiming to speak for God should inform us in no uncertain terms whose words it is we are about to hear. Whenever the Lord has spoken to us through a latter-day revelation, he has made himself known. He introduces himself by using some variation of  "Thus saith the Lord."  Our Doctrine and Covenants is riddled with examples:

"Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God" (Section 51); "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word" (Section 13);  "Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your redeemer, the Great I AM" (section 29); "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, Even Alpha and Omega" (section 35), and so on.

So here's where I start from: When I hear a conference talk, first I want to know if it is being delivered as a revelation from God.  Any speech, statement, decree, or declaration that comes from a leader of the church that does not profess to have come to us via direct revelation is not to be taken as if it issued from the mind of God.  It should be weighed against the canon of actual revelations to test its legitimacy, or it can be discarded and ignored. This method of judging the statements of General Authorities by holding them up to the light of scripture used to be the basic modus operandi within the church for separating the true from the false. Former President Harold B. Lee taught:

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.” (Harold B. Lee, "Stand Ye In Holy Places"pg 162-163)

Apostle Bruce McConkie had this to say:

“Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church Procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position of itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual, although every person called to a position in the Church does grow in grace, knowledge, and power by magnifying the calling given him.” (Mormon Doctrine, "General Authorities")

Elders Lee and McConkie represented an era in Church leadership when actual scriptorians and theologians held office in the hierarchy.  In the old days, when a general authority represented a statement as being true, members had a responsibility to weigh that statement against the scriptures to make certain it passed the basic smell test.  If the statement was presented as having come from the mind of God, the members were expected to return home and pray about it in order to obtain a witness from the Holy Ghost, after which they would reconvene at the following conference and vote to accept that revelation as binding on the whole church.

Today we have abandoned that method and are expected to assume without question that everything spoken at conference or printed in a Church publication comes to us as if directly from the mind of God.  Here is how Dallin Oaks, currently a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has instructed us to approach statements made by Church leaders such as himself:

“We respect our leaders and presume inspiration in their leadership of the Church and in their teachings.” (The Ensign January 2011)

According to my American Heritage Dictionary, the word "presume" means:

To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary;

To take for granted that something is true or factual.

That seems to fly in the face of the counsel given above by Elders Lee and McConkie to test the teaching by comparing it to scripture.  But oh well. Yesterday's true prophet is today's dead prophet. Don't listen to them, listen to us.

A year after Oaks attempted to turn established Church protocol on its head with that statement above, Randall K. Bennett of the Seventy went and did him one better. In speaking of the current Church leadership, Bennett said:

“We have learned not to question the validity of what the prophets and apostles teach or to wonder if it makes sense. … Some might call our actions blind obedience. But we have the Lord’s personal promise that the prophets will never lead us astray.” (The Ensign, March 2012)

If you were to (rightly) follow the counsel of Lee, McConkie, and countless earlier Church leaders, you might start digging around among the Lord's revelations to find where He gave that "personal promise" Elder Bennett spoke of with such certainty.  When you failed to find that promise, but instead found countless examples in scripture where the Lord said precisely the opposite, you might (rightly) conclude that Elder Randall K. Bennett is full of crap up to his eyeballs.

Better keep it to yourself, though, unless you want to end up friendless pariahs like me and Connie. Because as Denver Snuffer aptly described the situation in the Church today:

 "In LDS Mormonism there is really only one doctrine left. Everything else is subordinate and changeable. But this single demand is paramount. If you disbelieve this position, then LDS Mormonism has no place for you. The doctrine:

'We follow a man whom we call a prophet.'

"If you disbelieve this, and think you ought to follow Christ first, and the church's 'prophet' is secondary, then you are insubordinate and a threat.

As I documented previously, last May I was called in by my bishop, who asked the question, "Rock, why are you a member of this church?"

I was asked the same question several months later by my stake president.  The answer I gave to both men was that I'm a member of the church because I qualify under the Lord's definition where He says whosoever repents and comes unto Him, the same is His church. (D&C 10:67)

That was the true answer. But it wasn't the "right" one. At least it was not the answer either man was looking for.  In thinking about those conversations later I realized that the problem those good men had was that they saw the church of Jesus Christ in vastly different terms than I did; indeed, quite differently than the way Jesus Christ himself defined His church.  They thought of "The Church" as somehow embodying the leaders in Salt Lake City, a group who are now viewed as "owning the brand" we call The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Because I sometimes differed with statements and actions of those leaders, they were honestly curious as to why I would want to remain a part of the organization.

I suppose that's to be expected after the last six decades of this Church operating under a corporate mindset. What my bishop and stake president really wanted to know was "Why would you want to remain employed with a company when you have problems with the Board of Directors?"

Sadly, a great many members of the Church share that mindset, which is why a great many others are suddenly awakening from their slumber and realizing they would prefer to identify with the church of Jesus Christ, and not The Church Of Those Guys Socking Money Into Malls And Condos.  But when these good saints awaken to their awful situation, they frequently find themselves suddenly at odds with family, friends, and fellow members who remain in the dwindle stage.

Some are hurt by the reaction of loved ones who see them as traitors to the faith. To them I say, be patient.  The honest in heart will come around.  I'm hearing more and more frequently from people who despised my blog the first time they happened upon it, but who, over time, have recognized that, as the apostle Peter declared, "We ought to obey God rather than men."  Not long ago I got a long letter of apology from a member who wrote me,

"When I first came upon your blog I thought you were the worst kind of traitor to the church. A wolf in sheep's clothing, a secret anti-Mormon posing as a Mormon in order to lead good people astray. I wanted to wrap my hands around your neck and strangle you.  Now I just want to wrap my arms around you and say thanks."

A letter like that is very rewarding, and I'm seeing similar sentiments expressed by the week.  But not everyone who walks into the light sees immediate rewards.  Many are ostracized by friends or unjustly disciplined by local leaders, all for wondering aloud why the structure of the Church today is so starkly different from that founded by Joseph Smith.  They want nothing more than to be left alone to follow the gospel as set out in our scriptures, but instead find persecution from those who feel they should walk in lockstep with the hierarchy.

On the other hand, countless new Facebook groups and online forums are springing up full of awakened souls who enjoy communicating with each other, and couldn't care less what others think about the way they choose to worship.  So you may feel rejected in some quarters, but you'll be accepted in others with open arms.

Welcome To The Remnant
Almost thirty years ago I read an essay by Albert Jay Nock, the famous libertarian theorist and former Episcopalian Priest, that had been published in the Atlantic Monthly clear back in 1936.  If you are among the newly awakened who just joined us, but are feeling beset by friends and family who accuse you of having abandoned your religion, this may help you take heart. You are not going to win over everyone, but eventually those who make the effort to understand will discover on their own that you have abandoned nothing about the religion except those parts of it that were false and don't matter. The honest in heart -and there are many, many honest in heart within the Latter-day Saint community- will bubble up to the top and find the greater truths hidden within Mormonism just as you did.  You will be surprised how many kindred spirits are out there. And more are awakening every day.

I will close this month by leaving you with those words by Father Nock.  This is a substantially edited version of his original essay, as I've included only a few pertinent paragraphs. The full version can be found at the Mises Institute.

Isaiah's Job
 By Albert Jay Nock


The prophet Isaiah's career began at the end of King Uzziah's reign, say about 740 B.C. This reign was uncommonly long, almost half a century, and apparently prosperous. It was one of those prosperous reigns, however, where at the end the prosperity suddenly peters out and things go by the board with a resounding crash.

In the year of Uzziah's death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. "Tell them what a worthless lot they are." He said, "Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don't mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them."

"I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you," He added, "that it won't do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life."

Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job — in fact, he had asked for it — but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so — if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start — was there any sense in starting it? "Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."

Apparently, then, if the Lord's word is good for anything — I do not offer any opinion about that, — the only element in Judean society that was particularly worth bothering about was the Remnant. Isaiah seems finally to have got it through his head that this was the case; that nothing was to be expected from the masses, but that if anything substantial were ever to be done in Judea, the Remnant would have to do it.

As things now stand Isaiah's job seems rather to go begging. Everyone with a message nowadays is eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass acceptance and mass approval.

Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not.  Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favor, and answerable only to his august Boss.

In any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those — dead sure, as our phrase is — but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.

One of the most suggestive episodes recounted in the Bible is that of a prophet's attempt — the only attempt of the kind on the record, I believe — to count up the Remnant. Elijah had fled from persecution into the desert, where the Lord presently overhauled him and asked what he was doing so far away from his job.

He said that he was running away, not because he was a coward, but because all the Remnant had been killed off except himself. He had got away only by the skin of his teeth, and, he being now all the Remnant there was, if he were killed the True Faith would go flat. The Lord replied that he need not worry about that, for even without him the True Faith could probably manage to squeeze along somehow if it had to.

 "And as for your figures on the Remnant," He said, "I don't mind telling you that there are 7,000 of them back there in Israel whom it seems you have not heard of, but you may take My word for it that there they are."

At that time, probably the population of Israel could not run to much more than a million or so; and a Remnant of 7,000 out of a million is a highly encouraging percentage for any prophet. With 7,000 of the boys on his side, there was no great reason for Elijah to feel lonesome; and incidentally, that would be something for the modern prophet of the Remnant to think of when he has a touch of the blues. But the main point is that if Elijah the Prophet could not make a closer guess on the number of the Remnant than he made when he missed it by 7,000, anyone else who tackled the problem would only waste his time.

The other certainty which the prophet of the Remnant may always have is that the Remnant will find him. He may rely on that with absolute assurance. They will find him without his doing anything about it.

                                                          ****

Announcements:
If you feel you may be a part of the Remnant, let's find each other. Please join us on May 15-17 for the first ever Remnant Family Reunion.  It's free, and it's only a five hour drive from Salt Lake City.  Click on the link below, then click on the image for a pdf file for details.

http://www.totheremnant.com/2015/01/more-details-about-reunion.html


Rules For Commening: I again remind those who wish to comment that posting only as "Anonymous" has not been working for us. You do not have to use your real name, but if you insist on choosing "Anonymous" from the drop-down menu, you must invent a username and place that either at the top or bottom of your comment so that readers can tell you apart from the many others who for some reason keep choosing to post under the "anonymous" option.   If you have a Google registration, use that one, otherwise it's best if you check the box that says "Name/URL", place your preferred username in in the "name" box, and ignore the box that asks for a URL. That way you can still remain anonymous if you so wish, but then other readers have a handle to address you with when responding. Comments missing any kind of identifying moniker are at risk of being deleted. I have to be strict about this because too many people posting as "anonymous" has resulted in chaos in the past.

Previously: Where'd Everybody Go?

Something really weird happened yesterday. During the general conference of the church, Elder Dieter Uchtdorf presented the names of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for a sustaining vote. When he asked for any opposed to manifest their votes, a handful of members responded by shouting, "Opposed."

But that wasn't the weird part. What was weird was the reaction of otherwise faithful latter-day Saints who felt those who voted in opposition were somehow out of line. Some described those who voted in opposition as "hecklers," which reveals their ignorance of the meaning of words as much as it does their understanding of church protocol.

Many member's objections to what occurred were typified by a statement Julie Ann Debenham expressed afterward to Fox News: “I think people have a right to oppose things. I just think there is a time and place to do it–and the time and place to do it is not inside the general assembly."

Well pardon me while I try to figure that one out.  The vote was taken in the general assembly; the general membership sitting in the general assembly were specifically requested at that time to manifest any votes in opposition. So...because some in the assembly followed church protocol by manifesting their votes at the proper place and time, others felt it would have been more appropriate had they done so some other place and some other time.

And we wonder why our critics accuse us Mormons of being dumbed down.

Just to be clear, these "dissenters" -a nasty sounding word I don't like using to describe people who are following the rules to the letter- were not in any way "heckling" Elder Uchtdorf. To heckle is to harass or badger a public speaker with impertinent questions or gibes. These people did nothing more than register their vote simply and quickly according to the rules laid down in scripture.  Then they sat down and said nothing more. They did not disrupt the meeting. The business of the meeting included asking for their opposing vote.  For his part, Uchtdorf responded appropriately by verbally acknowledging those opposing votes.

Majority carries. 'Nays' duly noted.

Done and done.

So why all the controversy breaking out on the internet?  I suppose it's controversial only because we are so unused to doing things the way the Lord instructs us to, that when we see it finally happen we panic. Didn't the Lord command  it be done in this very manner?

"And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference..." (D&C 124:144)

Not the time and place?  If Julie Ann Debenham were the only person who expressed that silly notion, we could smile and shrug it off.  But go online and have a look. Those very sentiments continue to be expressed by an army of smugly self-righteous, woefully ignorant latter-day Saints who are angry -visibly, vocally, furious- that anyone would have the gall to express a vote in conference contrary to their own.  Sometimes I tremble because of the pride of this people.

Matthew O. Richardson, Associate Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University observes,

"Unfortunately, the law of common consent is viewed by many members as nothing more than an accompaniment to a business agenda. Perhaps because of the frequency of the event, application of the law of common consent may become an automated raising of a hand in mechanical approval." (Sperry Symposium Classics: The Doctrine and Covenants, pg 134)

The vote to oppose is no less valid or important than the vote to sustain:

"If members are opposed to the proposed action, they can also make it known in the same manner. This practice, formally known as the law of common consent, is not only a noticeable part of our meetings but also an essential principle in proper gospel government and personal progression." (Ibid.)

You want controversy? You should have been around in the earliest days of the church. Back then, before a vote was taken, the floor was opened for debate and discussion. If someone in the congregation had an issue with a candidate for office on the grounds of moral turpitude, the candidate's dirty laundry was liable to be aired right there in front of everybody.  At least the modern procedure is -or was 40 years ago- to refer the person with an objection to go and talk to a general authority, so his grievance could be heard in private and investigated if the matter warranted. This was the procedure N. Eldon Tanner followed in 1977 when a member of the congregation, Byron Marchant, registered his opposing vote:

You'll notice Elder Tanner didn't balk at Brother Marchant for having the gall to voice his dissent right there in the middle of conference. Tanner responded to him with the respect you would expect from the Chair. After all, an opposing vote was asked for. Marchant's beef was his opposition to the Church's policy at that time of withholding the priesthood from black people.  I'm certain that when Elder Hinckley (an apostle at the time) met with Brother Marchant, he was not swayed by Marchant's arguments, but that's not the point. I also doubt Marchant held any illusion that his minority vote would change the policy. The reason dissenting votes are important is so that the record will reflect not all members are in lockstep, regardless of how many others may or may not share their views.  (Marchant was soon excommunicated for advocating a view that would become Church policy by the very next year. Go figure.)

Regular readers of this blog will recall that I have taken issue with Eldon Tanner in the past, but in my view he handled this situation perfectly; better, in fact, than Elder Uchtdorf did yesterday.  Uchtdorf  referred the dissenters to their respective stake presidents, where they had already hit the glass ceiling.  Their issues deserved to be brought directly to the attention of the Church's board of directors at Church headquarters.  Uchtdorf's failure to funnel their concerns to the proper authorities will only result in more problems in the future, as the hierarchy remains more and more isolated from the legitimate concerns of the rank and file.

There's one often overlooked reason for encouraging opposing votes when calling a person to an office in the Church: to save the Church from the kind of embarrassment it would prefer to avoid when a particular office-holder's past discrepancies come to light.  Joseph Fielding Smith (not that Joseph Fielding Smith -his nephew by the same name) was proposed as Church Patriarch in 1942. When the vote to sustain him was presented, there were no opposing voices heard, in spite of the fact that Smith had engaged in numerous sexual encounters with other boys during his days in the University of Utah theater department.  Years later, Connell O'Donavan interviewed one of Smith's classmates, Cynthia Blood:

Cynthia claimed that "everybody on campus knew" that Maud May Babcock and Joseph F. Smith, both from the university's Drama Department, "were queer", but it was pretty much "unspoken." Blood reported that "Professor Smith flitted amongst the boys and Maud flitted amongst us girls."

Connell Continues:

Joseph's ordination also dismayed several Mormons who knew that Smith was having sexual relations with other men. Ralph G. Smith reported that Joseph F. Smith "was known to be a homosexual. My brother, John [Gibbs Smith], was very, very upset because he was Captain of the anti-vice squad at the Salt Lake City Police Department. Why, he says, the man's got a record. He says, we've had many women call in and complain about him molesting their little boys [all over 18] at the school at the University of Utah". (Ralph G. Smith interview, as reported in Quinn, p. 387 n. 23) Winifred Haymond (or "Freda Hammond", 1907-1983, never married), a friend of Norval Service, reported that she was "stunned" at Smith's appointment as Patriarch. (From Connell O'Donovan with D.Michael Quinn, Chronology of Events on Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith's Homosexuality,GaySaltLake.com  )

And yet with all these members of the church who were aware of the patriarch's proclivities, not one of them spoke up and opposed his nomination as Church Patriarch.

Now you may be one of those people who says, "who cares? Maybe what this church needs is more gay people in high office."

You're not getting the point. Whatever your views are on same sex issues and religion, it's irrelevant here. The question is, don't you think the leadership deserved a heads up from those outside their inner circle who knew a thing or two about Joseph Fielding Smith that they did not?  Because what finally ended up happening is that the father of a young LDS sailor whom Smith had been involved with, contacted president Heber J. Grant and told him what Smith had done to his son. Patriarch Smith had been serving for two years as patriarch of the church, giving important patriarchal blessings to important people, before quickly being released for reasons of "ill health."

But as often happens with these things, rumors eventually leaked out. The high calling of Church Patriarch couldn't help but be tainted by the scandal. Joseph Fielding Smith's cousin, Eldred G. Smith, was called to replace him in that office, and when Eldred died, members of the hierarchy quietly dissolved that office altogether. A once important position originally held by Joseph Smith's own father and brother doesn't even exist anymore in the church today.

Our Shared Responsibility
As members of the church of Jesus Christ we have a collective obligation to see to it that the church remains ours, not the private playground of a group of elites.  The very idea that the leaders could possibly act contrary to the will of God is anathema to some in the church today, yet our scriptures warn us to be ever vigilant when pride grips those in power.  They won't be able to see it, but we can, and the Lord entrusts us with the veto power in order to hold their pride in check.  We are reminded in D&C 121 that it is the disposition of almost all men, when they get a little authority, to begin to exercise unrighteous dominion over others.

It says Almost All men. That would include Mormon men. In particular, Mormon men given a little authority.

The Lord has given us the veto power, and we are expected to use it, even against the president of the church if we deem it necessary.  Here is Samantha Shelley writing at Whatsoever Is Good:

"In Joseph Smith’s days as President, he had a falling out with his First Counselor, Sidney Rigdon. Joseph was essentially done with him, and asked the congregation not to sustain him. The congregation sustained him anyway. Joseph accepted it and Sidney Rigdon continued to serve in the First Presidency. There have been other times throughout Church history when people haven’t received a majority vote, and as a result, someone else was called. It’s the way God instructed that His Church be organized, and we shouldn’t immediately judge anyone who doesn’t sustain someone to a calling as being “apostate”.

A brother by the name of Matthew, one of those who voted in opposition yesterday, did so for reasons I feel are well thought out and lacking in guile.  Here is what Matthew wrote on his blog:

"I opposed the vote to sustain the President, First Presidency, and 12 Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the 185th General Conference yesterday. I wouldn't be making this public, except for the fact that I fear that the published reason that the group Any Opposed gave for their opposing votes will unduly influence the discussion about what happened from here on out, because it opened and ended with discussions of LGBT issues, therefore emphasizing them. While I don't claim that LGBT issues are unimportant (especially the suicides of LGBT individuals, which is truly tragic), I believe that these other issues are much more pressing, and hence needed more discussion and exposure.

"For me and hundreds of people I know, our issues with the Church have almost nothing to do with LGBT issues. We are not political or social crusaders trying to force a discussion on social issues or push the Church into changing doctrine or policies to align with a progressive philosophy. What we would like to see, what we believe is mandated in the scriptures that are given as "a law unto [the] Church" (D&C 42:49), is a return to the original doctrine as taught by Joseph Smith, and the more pure, Gospel-centered practices contained in the scriptures. Many of those who share my take on these issues have been excommunicated for their beliefs (you can read a partial list here), but undoubtedly they would have voted in opposition given the chance. My hope is that any faithful member coming across this will take time to read for understanding: even if you don't agree, try to understand where I and many, many others like me are coming from.

"I personally don't like contention; I eschew confrontation in my own life and, despite my failings and imperfections, want all members to come to a unity of the faith delivered to us by Christ, and restored through Joseph Smith. I am afraid that, if the Church doesn't correct its course soon, the Church will do things that will lead to a loss of that faith, and the fullness of the Gospel will be given to another people. [As the Savior warned in 3 Nephi 16 -Rock]

"I can't speak for anyone else, but I can list the reasons that I personally couldn't, in good conscience, either support or abstain from the sustaining vote of the leaders. I believe that every single one of those men are spiritual men. I believe they can be, and very often are, inspired. I believe many of them are honest. I believe many of them do the best, according to the traditions of their fathers and the Church, to be Christlike, and I believe that many of them succeed in becoming very Christlike. However, there is a difference between being spiritual, inspired, honest, and partially Christlike, and acting in full harmony with the requirements of your appointed station."

I will not engage in the idolatrous notion that "they know more than me", and that therefore the problem lies with me, and that I should keep my thoughts to myself and get back in line. I don't claim to know more than the leaders; I claim that God knows more than us all, that His will is revealed in the scriptures, and that it is the duty devolving on every single member to know His will and use the light and truth that God gives us to judge whether our leaders are leading according to His will. If they're not, it is our duty to oppose the vote to sustain them, that the problems may be brought to light and fixed..."

Matthew goes on to provide a list of specific concerns, many of which I share. That entire essay is well worth your time. You can find the full post here.

It's Called Common 'Consent' For A Reason
The law of Common Consent exists because the Lord has decreed the people will be governed only by those whom the people themselves permit into office.  This system is so important to the Lord that policies of the church and even doctrines must be approvedand voted onby the saints themselves before those doctrines become binding on the whole church.

Some members tend to forget that spiritual gifts, such as those of prophet, seer, and revelator, are separate from the administrative responsibilities leaders hold to govern church procedures and policies.  Those who confuse the two tend to wonder why we should even vote for Church leaders, since they presume God has already made the decision to put them in whatever office they are nominated for. But Brigham Young had some interesting things to say about that:

Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question—Does a man’s being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the president of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the president of the Church,as long as he lived: the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people;though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice.” (Journal of Discourses 1:133)

Apostle J. Reuben Clark reminds us that our vote to sustain is also a vote to elect. Though we do not choose the nominees, whether a nominee gets through the vetting process is supposed be up to us. It's a shame we have that much responsibility, yet are reluctant to recognize or use it:

“In the Church the nominating power rests in a group, the General Authorities, but the sustaining or electing power rests in the body of the Church, which under no circumstances nominates officers, the function of the Church body being solely to sustain or to elect. . . .” (General Conference Report April 1940)

Remember, it is not only our right and duty to oppose certain leaders who may be proposed to us if we don't feel right about them, but also to oppose policies and procedures that we suspect may not have been revealed to the Brethren from Heaven. I'll give Brigham Young the last word here:

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the Kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are.'

"This is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (Journal of Discourses, 3:45)

UPDATE April 6th, 2014:As there continues to be considerable misjudgment concerning the motives of those who expressed votes in opposition last Saturday, I think my friend Regina Samuelson quite nicely summarized the problems that compelled these people to vote as they did. Here is what she had to say:


                                                                      *****
Rules For Commenting: I again remind those who wish to comment that posting only as "Anonymous" has not been working for us and is therefore not permitted. You do not have to use your real name, but if you insist on choosing "Anonymous" from the drop-down menu, you must invent a username and place that either at the top or bottom of your comment so that readers can tell you apart from the many others who for some reason keep choosing to post under the "anonymous" option.   If you have a Google registration, use that one, otherwise it's best if you check the box that says "Name/URL", place your preferred username in in the "name" box, and ignore the box that asks for a URL. That way you can still remain anonymous if you so wish, but then other readers have a handle to address you with when responding. Comments missing any kind of identifying moniker are at risk of being deleted. I have to be strict about this because too many people posting as "anonymous" has resulted in chaos in the past.

Previously: Any Opposed, Please Sit Down And Shut Up

I suppose in the not-too-distant future, when the Lord has either cleansed the LDS Church of its gross iniquity, or followed up on the promise he made in 3rd Nephi 16:10 to take the fulness of the gospel away from us entirely, we'll look back on the first decades of the 21st century as the point when this thing finally went off the rails.

The days we're living in now are the days prophesied in 2nd Nephi 28, as Church leaders insist the people place the leader's anemic counsel ahead of the teachings of the "dead prophets" in the Bible and Book of Mormon.[1]  "Hearken unto us and hear our precepts" is the way Nephi has them word it. Yet when they teach, Nephi says, "they teach with their learning" (verse 4), by way of scripted speeches read from teleprompters, and not by the power of the Holy Ghost. Never are any of them heard delivering an unmistakable message from God as was common in the days of our founding prophet. Yet they claim to have the identical gifts he had.

"All is vanity,"said the preacher.
 ______________________________________
[1]. "The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works" and "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." (Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual, Chapter 2)

Things are really getting out of control lately, as we hear the incessant drumbeat to obey our leaders, who cite the now ubiquitous teaching that "obedience is the first law of heaven" as if A) that phrase was actually a doctrine of the church, and B) it means anything close to what they think it means.

That statement has never appeared in any revelation from God, cannot be found in any of the standard works, and was never taught by Joseph Smith.  Yet somehow that flim-flammery has attained the status of First All-Encompassing Doctrine of the Church -If you don't count the other counterfeit that claims the president of the Church is incapable of leading the church astray. Those twin bamboozlements are practically joined at the hip.

Is Alexander Pope Catholic?
"Obedience is the first law of heaven" is a phrase that first appeared in the LDS lexicon in an 1873 conference talk by then apostle Joseph F. Smith, but the idea wasn't original with him. He cribbed it from Alexander Pope's classic An Essay on Man, wherein is found the line "order is heaven's first law." Pope's work was a well-known affirmation of Christian faith. As the Wikipedia entry describes it,

"Pope presents an idea on his view on the Universe; he says that no matter how imperfect, complex, inscrutable and disturbing the Universe appears to be, it functions in a rational fashion according to the natural laws.

Pope's work would have been familiar to Joseph F.Smith, as it was to most literate persons of the 19th century. "Order is heaven's first law" had, in fact, become a familiar maxim in both England and America throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. The belief was universally embraced by all of Christendom; it was not an idea proprietary to Mormonism.  In a talk Joseph F. Smith gave in 1896, he mentioned Pope's famous axiom and gave it a little tweak of his own:

"It is frequently said that order is the first law of heaven. I wish to put this in a different light...My opinion is that obedience...is the first law of heaven."

 Okay, fine. Obedience=order. Tomato, Tomahto. Doesn't really matter, since obedience to the fixed laws of the universe was what guaranteed order in the heavens. As far as the phrase was understood back then, there was little harm in changing that one word in order to enhance and enlarge its meaning.   Joseph F. Smith understood what the law of heaven was, same as everyone else in his day. That understanding, however, was quite a bit different than the way it is commonly being taught in the church today.  And keep in mind Elder Smith was careful to present this as his opinion; he was not claiming to speak for God as if through revelation.

Nevertheless, there's no reason to take issue with Joseph F's expanded view of the phrase; it is consistent with teachings previously revealed through his uncle, Joseph Smith, Jr.  What is important for us to understand 140 years later is that obedience in that sense is far removed from the kind of obedience we usually have in mind when we think of Church rules we are encouraged to obey, such as "attend all your meetings" or "don't drink coffee."  The law of heaven is not that kind of law. It references an entirely different kind of obedience.

When we are discussing "the law of heaven," we're not in the arena of statutes and ordinances -the type of laws humans must comply with in order to control their behavior.  The law of heaven is best understood in terms of the law of physics, or Newton's law of Universal Gravitation. The word "law" in this usage stands for an established reality regarding the way the universe works.  No human being is capable of either obeying or disobeying the law of heaven. It exists outside our influence.  It just is.

That's why it's called the law of heaven. The law of heaven refers to the laws or processes by which heaven/the universe operates. Everything from the largest planet to the tiniest molecule obeys the law of heaven by fulfilling the role for which it was created.  Here's a succinct description given by A.E. Johns in 1943, after quoting Alexander Pope's famous line, "order is the first law of heaven":

"By 'order' he obviously meant rank, relative position, a condition where everything is arranged so as to play its proper part. And in nature and astronomy there is such ordering. We speak of the various cosmic units. In particular, below us in size there are three: the electron, the atom, and the molecule. Above us, there are also three: the planets, of which our earth is a sample; the star, of which our sun is a sample; and the galaxy, of which our Milky Way is one...All science is based on the assumption that our universe is orderly." 

Today we invite confusion when we mistake the laws of heaven, (which control the operation of the universe) for the commandments of God, which are laws we are capable of choosing to either obey or ignore. God himself is subject to the laws of heaven, [2] although he does have power to manipulate and control those laws when it suits his purposes.
_____________________________________
[2] See for instance D&C 84:13 "...the power by which all things are governed, even the power of God..."

Sadly, when most latter-day Saints hear the word "law," what instantly comes to mind is a rule or regulation they are expected to obey.  But think it through. "Obedience is the first law of heaven" as some sort of commandment we are expected to obey, isn't even possible, as LDS Author Luther Tychonievich points out:

"This is a pretty silly law; it doesn’t even say any­thing at all. If I ini­tially planned to obey, the law does noth­ing. If I ini­tially planned to dis­obey, like­wise it does noth­ing. It is a great way to make dis­obe­di­ence to any law seem more harsh: break absolutely any law and you also break the first law as well. 'You had an unkind thought toward an ene­my? You just broke the First Law of Heav­en!‍'"

Part of the confusion, I think, is the result of thinking that the law of heaven is synonymous with the law of God. But they are not the same.  God's laws consist of commandments we are expected to follow. The law of heaven, on the other hand, has literally nothing to do with any input on our part.  We have no influence on the laws of heaven, nor are we able to "obey" such laws.  We don't obey the law of heaven. We can, however, choose to obey the laws of God because we have agency to do so.

The law of heaven is a cosmic system that governs matter, from the tiniest particle to the mightiest planet, all created to perform their individual functions.  The tiny particles that make up the molecules of a lead brick do not have the agency to transform themselves into gold, or water, or cauliflower. The law of heaven keeps them in their place.  Could the elements suddenly choose to stop obeying the laws of heaven? Yes, but if they did, all would resort back to chaos. Happily they have chosen to remain obedient to the law of heaven, otherwise the universe would fly apart in an instant and man would cease to be.

The famous Reformed Baptist theologian C.H. Spurgeon, a contemporary of Joseph F. Smith, described how order kept everything in the universe operating as it should:

"Look up to the heavens and observe the innumerable stars that glisten there so plenteously that numeration fails. Looked at through the telescope, stars are so abundant that the heavens appear to be covered with dust of gold, and yet we have no record that one of these bodies has ever interfered with the orbit of its fellow sphere; or if such a catastrophe has ever been permitted, it has been part of the all-comprehending scheme. The majestic orbs move, each one in its own orbit, and all in perfect harmony.

"Even the aberrations, as we call them, are nothing but the result of regular law, and the astronomer finds that he can calculate them with the greatest possible accuracy. There are no irregularities, discords, or failures among the constellations! And if to the student of the heavens such should appear to be the case, he has but more fully to master the universal law and he discovers, with astonishment, that every eccentricity is a necessary incident in a system grander than he had thought.

"Mere amateurs in astronomy talked of irregularities, but Newton and Kepler found a mathematical precision manifest in all. At no point need we be afraid that the universe will be thrown out of gear! If a man had placed innumerable wheels in a machine, there would be, in due time, a breakdown somewhere. Oil would be needed here, a cog would be broken there, a band would be snapped in this place, or a piston would be immovable there—but God’s great machine of the universe, whose wheels are so high that the sublime Ezekiel, when he saw them, felt that they were terrible, has continued to revolve these many thousands, perhaps millions of years, and has never yet been stopped for cleaning or repair because God has impressed upon every atom of it the most docile spirit of submission—and His powerful hands are at work every instant amidst the machinery giving force to His laws."

Did Joseph F. Smith understand that this was the proper interpretation of  "the law of heaven"? Of course he did. Our religion teaches that the tiniest particles in the universe all consist of two parts: that which acts, and that which is acted upon. Everything in the universe has a tiny intelligence attached to it, which enables it to "understand" its purpose in the greater scheme, and hold itself in its proper place. The importance of every element in the universe knowing its purpose and being obedient to its role is precisely what Elder Smith meant when he substituted the word "obedience" for "order.":

"Obedience is the first law of heaven. Without it the elements could not be controlled. Without it neither the earth nor those who dwell upon it could be controlled. The angels in heaven would not be controlled without it, and in fact without obedience there could be no union or order, and chaos and confusion would prevail...The elements are obedient to his word. He said, “Let there be light and there was light.” He commanded the land and the waters to be divided, and it was so. When Christ commanded the storm to be still, and the sea to be calm, the elements were obedient to him. The earth, and all the worlds which God has made are obedient to the laws of their creation; for this reason there are peace, harmony, union, increase, power, glory and dominion, which could not exist without obedience." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 16, pg 248) 

The reason "obedience" is referred to as "the first law of heaven" is not because being obedient is the most important law we can obey. It's the first law because it was sequentially the first "law" to come into existence. Without this first law there would be no order in the universe.  There would likely be no universe at all.  Order, or the requirement that the elements be obedient to the order of heaven, was the first law to be established. All other laws of the universe would logically follow after.

Elder Joseph F. Smith was correct in his explanation of the law of heaven, and what that law meant. Unfortunately, he took things a step too far and tried to apply the analogy to people:

"Sisters, do not flatter yourselves that you have nothing to answer for so long as you may have a good husband. You must be obedient."

 Uh-oh. Here it comes.

Shape Up, Sisters!
Joseph F. Smith was suddenly sounding more like a Shaker than a Mormon. By the mid 19th century, the Shaker community was already functioning under an aberrant interpretation of the meaning of the law of heaven, and Joseph F. Smith seemed determined for us to follow in their wake by misapplying it as well:

"Since it was a Shaker precept that 'order is heaven's first law,' it was the accepted responsibility of the sisterhood to keep the household clean and orderly and prepare and serve the meals on time." (Work and Worship Among the Shakers, by Edward Deming Andrews, pg 200)

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against having women prepare and serve me meals; I'd like to try a system like that in my own home sometime.  It's just that Joseph F. Smith, like the Shakers, was trying to use this lesson about how wonderful it is that the elements "know their place," as a motivation to get other people to change their behavior to suit him.  Elder Smith, like his colleagues in the Quorum and the First Presidency, spent a considerable amount of conference time ragging on the women of the church about being obedient -obedient not to God, mind you, but to their husbands.  This was 1873, when polygamy was in full swing, and it was often a constant struggle for the men to keep the wives in check.

When I was younger, I set out to read all 26 volumes of the Journal of Discourses, thinking it would give me a broad understanding of LDS doctrine.  It didn't, of course, because our doctrine is supposed to come from God, and these guys literally never received any direct communications from the Almighty the way our founding prophet had all the time.  What they often did in general conference was present their own opinions and speculations, and these speeches were published in the Journal of Discourses so that future historians could be bored out of their skulls same as I was. Some of the things they taught were consistent with the scriptures, and some were wildly off base.  What I found surprising in my reading was how often Brigham and his cohorts thought it necessary to chastise the women for being unhappy in their positions.

The women of the church would grumble about their situation, and their husbands would get up in conference and grumble about all the grumbling the women were doing. It looked to me that if this system of plural marriage was to bring peace and joy to these people's lives, it was going to be an uphill climb.  This conference talk of Elder Smith's was just one of many that carried with it a rebuke against the sisters, encouraging them to bite the bullet and keep still about their lot.

For his part, Smith cajoled the menfolk in the congregation into being more obedient, too. But that was the problem. He took what should have been an explanation of how the heavens operated, and tried to extend the metaphor where it didn't fit.  We have been suffering from that misapplication of thought in the church ever since.

Is obedience a trait we should cultivate? Absolutely. I don't know how we expect to gain salvation without being obedient to God. The problem arises when so many of our members choose to obey the precepts of the leaders, and by doing so assuming they are following God.  It's this "obey the leaders" mentality that results in good people believing God cares how many holes they have in their ears.

No Wonder They Call Us A Cult
After a particular appearance where President Hinckley wondered aloud why any woman would want go go around with two earrings in each earlobe instead of just one, a whole slew of our young women began assiduously obeying "the one earring rule" as though it were a commandment handed down from Mount Sinai. So powerful is the mantra "obedience is the first law of heaven," that thousands of women rushed to be obedient to a commandment God never uttered. "If the prophet asks you to do something and I can do it 100 percent," declared a chipper young BYU coed sporting only one ring in each earlobe, "then I'm happy."

Well, good for her. Except the prophet never asked her to do any such thing, and even if he had, it would not have been a commandment unless God had told Hinckley to announce it as one.  This Church is fast becoming a Cult of Obedience, even over matters that have nothing to do with God's will.

Perhaps I should say especially over matters that have nothing to do with God's will.

Recently the president of the Fresno California Mission announced a new policy for his missionaries demanding "Exact Obedience." Exact obedience to what? Why, obedience to the rules the president himself laid down, of course. Among the demands he is making of the missionaries under his charge, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that resembles an instruction from the Lord. What the missionaries are being asked to obey are standard sales practices: the more people you pitch your product to, the better your chances that one out of ten will result in a sale.

And that's all this strategy is. The president has set a goal for his missionaries to make 100 sales a month.  Oh, excuse me, did I say "sales"? I meant baptisms. But he is marketing these baptisms as the product these missionaries are expected to hit the streets and sell.  This is the sad result of the corporate thinking that has overtaken our Church: the greater the number of potential customers you're able to reach, the greater the chance you'll be rewarded with a bite on your line.

I previously addressed this unfortunate propensity we have of equating baptisms with collecting converts to the church.  The goal of every missionary should be to help others come to Christ. What they shouldn't be doing is hustling people into joining our club.

This mission president's celebration of obedience is so over the top that when I first read it I thought it was satire. In fact, when the proprietor of Nearing Kolob reported on it, he titled his piece "Is This Satire? Nope, This Mission President's Blog is Real."

Our out-of-control culture of obedience results in all kinds of corruption of the gospel of Christ, as typified by an astonishingly misguided children's book that one reviewer aptly labeled Satan's Plan 2.0.

And let's not forget that when we wallow in the belief that obedience in the church is paramount over everything else, we often end up expelling from our society those who are not seen as 100% loyal to the leaders. Four weeks ago blogger Adrian Larsen compiled a shocking list of church members who had been harshly disciplined by their bishops and stake presidents in only the past six months because they failed to kiss the ring of authority when instructed to. "Those who follow Christ most rigorously," writes Adrian, "are often the ones most targeted for 'discipline,' which almost always consists of an ultimatum to either stop following Christ, or be thrown out of the LDS church."

Darn Right The Church Can Be Led Astray
Aside from the reality that the way strict obedience is taught in the church today is flat-out wrong, this false teaching is accomplishing what we were told could never be done: it's leading the church astray.  Bruce McConkie insisted that the teaching that states "obedience is the first law of heaven" is "the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest."

That would be a pretty heavy notion if it were true.  Recently, in an essay titled "Why Obedience is NOT the First Law of Heaven," the proprietor of  The Perfect Day blog presented four reasons why McConkie's declaration is problematic:

1." I've known plenty of people who were flawlessly obedient -attending all church meetings, paying full tithes/fast offerings, 100% home/visiting teaching, working in the cannery, going to the temple every week, doing family history -you name it. Yet they avoided associating with people they didn't like.  They prided themselves on not "giving to those deceitful beggars" (a direct quote) just outside the Walmart parking lot.  A few were verbally abusive to their spouses and/or kids.  Wearing the finest clothes, driving the finest cars, and living in the finest house was of paramount importance.

2. "If you tried to count how many commandments we are expected to obey -including instructions to grow a garden, visit the sick, do your family history, learn the signs of the times as well as all the written commandments -you'd find thousands.  And what do you think the chances are that you'll obey them all? Zero, right? There are just too many "commandments" to keep them all perfectly. With that being the case, then technically none of us should make it into heaven.

3.  "Obedience" itself is never declared a "law." The Ten Commandments? The Law of Moses? Now those are laws! But obedience, as I understand it, denotes a voluntary compliance to laws. (See D&C 130:21)

4.  "Logically, even if obedience were a law, it would be impossible for it to be the first law of heaven.  After all, unless another law existed first, there would be nothing for obedient souls to obey.

Jesus long ago taught us the true first law of heaven. There are two of them, in fact. If you can't remember what they are, why not read the rest of that post on The Perfect Day? This is the best, most thorough examination of the topic I've ever seen, so if you have any interest at all in jettisoning false teachings from your life and replacing those false notions with truth, I promise you it will be well worth your time. Here it is again:

Why Obedience is NOT the First Law of Heaven

Getting It Right
With so much rampant falsehoods now circulating in the church, how can we know whether we are following a true teaching or a false one? Harold B. Lee gave us the key back in 1964:

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

If we expect to be worthy to face our Lord at the judgement bar, we latter-day Saints deserve to shrug off the unbelief and falsehoods that have kept us devoting ourselves to the mundane while ignoring our true purpose. We can begin by resolving to obey the first two commandments of God, and diligently questioning any supposed "doctrines" that come from any source other than Him.

---

Update May 8th, 2015:
Readers may find this blog of interest:
The Hazards of Obedience


Important Announcement:
I've been losing the battle against spam getting through on the comment forums here (how many testimonies to the effectiveness of spellcasting African witch doctors must I be forced to delete?) So I'm forced to eliminate the ability for readers to post comments under the "Anonymous" and "Name/URL" options.  There are still plenty of options for posting comments, either by registering with a Google name, or selecting one of several options provided under the Open ID drop-down box.  I hate forcing readers to take that extra step in order to post a comment, but limiting the number of options appears to be the only way to keep the riff-raff from sneaking in. Thankfully, once you register a username for the first time, you won't have to do it again.

Previously: The Worst Law of Heaven

Just four days ago, my bishop and the stake executive secretary showed up at my doorstep to hand me this letter:

Dear Brother Waterman,

The stake presidency is considering formal disciplinary action in your behalf, including the possibility of disfellowshipment or excommunication, because you are reported to have participated in conduct unbecoming a member of the church, namely apostacy (sic).

You are invited to attend this disciplinary council to give your response and, if you wish, to provide witnesses and other evidence in your behalf.

The disciplinary council will be held on Wednesday Evening June 3, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. at the stake center at 2745 Eastern Ave. Sacramento, CA 95821.

Regards, 
President Douglas E. Hansen
Sacramento CA East Stake

The letter was written on Monday and delivered to me on Tuesday evening, giving me less than eight days to prepare to defend myself against what is considered by many akin to spiritual execution.  Thanks for the timely heads up, guys!

There's quite a bit I could say about this upcoming adventure, but most of it has already been covered in this interview I gave immediately after receiving the summons:



What The...What?!
As you'll see in the video interview with John Dehlin above, I have no earthly idea what the charges against me might be that could warrant such a drastic reaction. Certainly nothing I've written in this blog entails "participation in conduct unbecoming a member of the church." As Church spokespersons have repeatedly affirmed,

"Church leaders are not asking members not to blog, and they are not attacking the rights of honest explorers of faith to have these conversations in the so-called Bloggernacle." Church Spokeswoman Ally Isom on KUER radio, June 16th

So that's a relief. It can't be this blog that's gotten me into hot water with Church authorities.  Then what is it, I wonder?

Well, I did participate recently in a family reunion of sorts. This was a gathering of fellow Mormon bloggers, Facebook friends, and online acquaintances where we had a chance to finally meet, visit together, and enjoy a potluck dinner.  Saturday night there was even a dance at the local school gym. 

To be honest, a lot of us grownups didn't dance; we pulled up chairs to visit with each other in the hallway. Mostly it was teenagers and little kids on the dance floor.  But I did come running when I heard the Macarena playing, because that's pretty much the only coordinated dance I ever learned -taught to me by my son and the other two boys I drove to seminary every morning back when that dance was all the rage.  So maybe it's just now coming out that dancing to the Macarena constitutes conduct unbecoming.  It wouldn't surprise me.  Wouldn't surprise you either if you ever saw the way I dance.

Anyway, Sunday morning we all gathered outside and had a testimony meeting and partook of the sacrament.  That couldn't be it, either. If bearing testimony of Christ and partaking of His sacrament is considered by anyone to be conduct unbecoming a member of the church of Jesus Christ, then maybe I am in the wrong church, after all.

As I was wracking my brain trying to determine what possible conduct I might have been reported as participating in that could by any stretch of the imagination be considered "conduct unbecoming a member of the church," I got a phone call from someone in Idaho who may have hit on the answer.

Apparently I've been trafficking in pornography.

Yep. I think that sort of thing would qualify as Conduct Unbecoming.

Rock Waterman-Purveyor of Fine Filth 
This caller, whom I had never heard from before, informed me that he had pulled up my Google Plus account and found a video on there featuring two naked men going at it with gusto -by which I mean there was no naked woman in the scene with them. The caller didn't believe I had anything to do with putting that video up on my Google Plus site (he was right), but wanted to let me know about it just the same. I thanked my new friend for alerting me to this shocker. (The video was immediately removed by the fine folks at Google once they were alerted to its existence.)

Google Plus is one of the many things I've signed up for at one time or another then promptly forgot about. Frankly, I don't even know what Google Plus is or what it's for. It means no more to me than the myriad other sites such as LinkdIn, Pinterast, Imgur, GoodReads, or any other site some pop-up ad invited me to sign up for and I responded with a shrug and a "why not?"

I have no idea what these things do either and I never bothered to find out. So I'm prepared to state unequivocally right here and now that I am not in the habit of posting disquieting images of confirmed bachelors frolicking naked on any social media to which I subscribe and never use.

This news I received from my new friend in Idaho did not catch me totally off guard, because something much like it has happened before. Some months ago I began receiving reports from friends claiming they were receiving pornographic pictures, videos, and songs with raunchy lyrics, all coming from my email account. I asked them to send them back to me so I could see what it was I was supposed to be sending out, and sure enough, it was some pretty rank stuff. I still don't know who or why anyone would hack into my account and send people naughty pictures reportedly from me, but there it was in front of my eyes, and attributed as having originally come from RockWaterman@gmail.com. Unless I'm an unwitting somnambulist with a darker side, I'm pretty certain I didn't send out those messages.

This prompted me to post an asseveration on my Facebook page some months ago, affirming that I do not traffic in such things, nor do I post, send, or convey such materials online or by mail, and that I never have.

Interestingly, just yesterday my wife was contacted by my brother, Karl, who informed her someone had likely hacked into her email account, as he had received some distasteful and uncharacteristic materials purporting to be from her. A year or two ago her Facebook account was closed after the folks at Facebook accused her of posting inappropriate material on her wall. (She hadn't. In fact, she hadn't so much as signed in on Facebook for over six months prior to that notification.)

So this is beginning to look like a family business.

The reason I bring this up here is because since I began blogging, I've gained a few determined enemies. One or two of these individuals despise me wholeheartedly and without reservation. My online interaction with a couple of these guys has at times given me pause, as they do not appear to be in tip-top health emotionally or mentally. Connie has expressed concern to me on more than one occasion that if these people lived anywhere near us they might try to assassinate me and think they were doing the Church a favor. I've dismissed her concerns, but really, who knows? There are all kinds of people out there, and at least two have zeroed in on me and proven both in private correspondence and public that they have an obsession with me some might label "unhealthy."

[Warning: After I wrote the following section, a couple of people have told me they found it disturbing. So do I.  But Connie, whose intuition I trust, felt strongly prompted that if someone wished to destroy my reputation, it might be by an attempt to peg me as a pedophile who keeps child pornography on his hard drive. (I have no idea whether this stuff has been embedded in my computer or not)  "What else could they possibly have to use against you?" she asked, "Face it Rock, there are people out there who would utterly destroy you if they could find a way."  We felt it was important to pre-empt any method anyone might feasibly try to use to attack me on this front by getting ahead of this story. So some may wish to skip the next two paragraphs, as they are disturbing.]

One time I was led to a link purporting to lead to one of my blog posts, the one titled "Too Bad I Don't Like Beer." It's not unusual for me come across something I have written that has been re-posted on someone else's site, sometimes in distant countries and translated into foreign languages. Some of my posts have been translated into Japanese and Portuguese, so I'm always interested in taking a look when I hear of it.

At this particular time, however, when I clicked on the link, I saw something I wish I never had. You know how you hear about seeing something you can't un-see? Well, when I clicked on this link that, for all intents and purposes, should have taken me to one of my own blog posts, I was subjected to a page full of pictures showing naked young girls who looked to be between the ages of nine and twelve years old, all of whom were being ravaged by men whose heads and faces were deliberately kept out of frame. These children did not look happy to be where they were or doing what they were obviously forced to be doing. In the one photo that sticks in my mind, a tiny girl is staring unhappily into the camera while holding her arm next to a man's very large erect penis, demonstrating that the member next to her arm was larger than her own arm from elbow to wrist. I hesitate even to write about this disquieting affair, but I think it's necessary I do so for reasons I'll cover in a moment.

But first, here's why I bring all this up: Whether my accounts have been hacked by deliberate enemies or just random teenage pranksters, it wouldn't take much for some innocent member of my local congregation to receive an email purportedly from me, open it, and find it contains disconcerting content. If two of these innocent recipients were to believe these emails came from me, and report them to my local church authorities, that is all that is required for me to be brought up on charges of conduct unbecoming a member of the church.

Of course, the proper course for those members would have been to contact me first before running to the bishop. That is what is required under D&C section 42, verse 88 before involving local church authorities. And if the bishop or stake president were to have any concerns about such things, they are required by scripture to approach me privately first to learn if these concerns are warranted. Issuing a summons to a formal disciplinary hearing is jumping the gun quite a bit.

Nevertheless, for these reasons I think it would be wise to issue a formal Asseveration, so I hereby assert that I DO NOT traffic in pornography of any kind, I DO NOT download pornography, I DO NOT and HAVE NEVER sent any improper materials, videos, songs, or lyrics to anyone at any time, whether by email, postal mail, or personal delivery.

My hands are clean of such activity, so if you or anyone you know receives anything purporting to be from me that seems out of character, you may know of a surety that I had nothing to do with it. And that goes also for anything purporting to have come through the email or Facebook accounts of my wife, Connie.

Okay. Enough said about that.

Prayers For Wednesday
If you've already watched the video interview above, you can probably tell that I'm ready for this disciplinary hearing and looking forward to clearing things up. I'm comfortable with the procedural law as the scriptures direct for these situations, so I'm confident I can make certain God's law is paramount in that venue, and not man's. Members of Christ's church can be held to answer only for transgressions, and I am not aware of any actual sins or transgressions I might be guilty of that would warrant such a hearing. As regular readers know, I'm a stickler for accuracy, so if this charge of misconduct has anything to do with my blog, I will be interested to know what errors of fact or doctrine I stand accused of promulgating, and if those accusations have merit I am prepared to correct my errors.

I see this as an opportunity to clear up misconceptions some people have -notably people who are not very familiar with me or my writings. Normally in a hearing of this type, the members of the stake high council will have no idea of the controversy going in; all they will know about me is whatever the witnesses against me have to say, and I will have the responsibility of defending myself by correcting whatever misinformation is presented.

In my previous conversations with both my bishop and my stake president, they expressed concern that my blog may be leading people out of the church. Regular readers know that's nonsense, of course, and in the past few days I've received testimonials from readers affirming that my blog has had the opposite effect; that it has assisted many in giving them reasons to stay. Anyone reading these words who would like to add their own short statement of support can do so in the comment section below. I will then print it up and present them in my defense.

Please add your prayers for me and Connie these next few days, and especially on Wednesday evening. Pray that I will be lucid (if you watch the video you can tell I'm anything but), and that I will speak straightforward with power and confidence. (In other words, I'd prefer not to stammer and ramble as I often do. Again, see the video above.)

If my membership is being tried because this blog offends someone in leadership, one might wonder why anyone in the Church hierarchy would wish to silence a voice that embraces the Book of Mormon, venerates Joseph Smith as a prophet, and bears testimony of Christ. In answer, I would simply say I have learned that putting the doctrines of Christ ahead of the doctrines of men will sometimes earn you the ire of some of those men. Throughout history, men who think they speak for God are often overcome with pride to the point they are unable to recognize their own faults and shortcomings while they are busy focusing on yours. As someone posted yesterday on the New Order Mormon Forum:

"I think the more cogent issue is the authority issue. Denying the Corporate Church its claimed celestial mandate, accompanying authority, and requisite demand/acquiescence of obedience is a far more threatening issue than a bunch of folks getting together for a chat or a new baptism or sacrament.

 "Challenging the Divine Authority of the Church attacks its essential power-base. A lot of folks want to make this sort of thing about a "loss of revenue" for the Church by reduced tithes but in the end it's about who talks to and speaks for and acts as the Lord in this world. Remember, the Stake President is God in a Court of Love. He can strip you of your spouse and family for all eternity. That mortal, flawed and imperfect man acts as the Lord does on the last day--and will do that which he "feels" is the will of the Lord--ignoring the idea that he has pride, lust, love, sin, prejudice and humanity that taints his vision.

"It's that simple. If your conduit to the Lord doesn't run through the Church and only the Church you're going to find yourself in a bind with the Church.

"Not so much with the Lord, in my opinion."

Thank you all for your support all these years. I have been asked if I would stop blogging if I am excommunicated from the Church, and submit to the authority of my priesthood leaders and do as I am told.


Come on now. I would hope you've come to know me better than that.



Related Post: Who Is Changing The Doctrine?



                                   
A Few Quick Announcements:
In previous posts I have recommended The Parallel Doctrine & Covenants as one of the most useful books I own. This is the only way I read the D&C anymore because when I read it I want to know I'm reading the most accurate versions of Joseph Smith's revelations extant. Right now the publisher, Signature Books, is clearing out all remaining copies at only $25.00 each. This book is normally fifty bucks, and when they're gone they will likely go for more (right now Amazon has a used copy listed for $102.00).

These books are available only through Signature Books.com or through the author at his Salt Lake City store, Benchmark Books. You can't get them at this price from Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Believe me, you need this book.

Also at an incredibly reduced price are Dan Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. There are five volumes in all, normally $45.00 per volume, but now going out the door for $23.00 each. These are incredible research resources, as well as making fascinating reading. I own two volumes myself, and if I haven't shot myself in the foot by encouraging you folks to buy out the rest of the inventory, I hope to eventually own the other three. These books are available from the sources linked to above, as well as on Amazon.

Previously: Conduct Unbecoming A Member Of The Church

A few hours ago I was excommunicated from the church for apostasy.

"What sins am I guilty of?"
"Apostasy."
"No, apostasy is your judgment.  What sins have I committed that make up this apostasy?"
"Apostasy is the sin."

One truth has come home to me with laser clarity: there are two religions operating side by side in the LDS church today, both vying for dominance. The first is the religion founded through Joseph Smith, which emphasizes dependence on Christ.  The other religion requires allegiance to Church leaders above all else.  If your devotion to Jesus is stronger than your fealty to the Church hierarchy, you are a threat to their system.

It doesn't matter how forcefully you bear testimony of Christ and His gospel; the Brethren-ite religion has but one focus: replace the organic religion with the counterfeit one, all the while convincing followers nothing has changed.

In the video below, you can hear my wife and I give a report on the hearing and its immediate aftermath. To watch the Mormon Stories interview from the day prior to the disciplinary hearing, Click Here.



Here are links to the blog posts referred to during this interview:

My Testimony Of The Church

Not Quite The Same

Who You Callin' Apostate? 

Go Ahead And Skip That Temple Wedding 

Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?

When Tithing Settlement Goes Horribly Wrong

How To Calculate What You Owe In Tithing

Too Bad I Don't Like Beer


[The Angry Stake President header illustration is used courtesy Jonathan Streeter and his groovy blog.]

Previously: Yerrrrr OUT!

New Zealander Gina Colvin, proprietor of the incomparable blog Kiwi Mormon, recently interviewed me in-depth for the podcast series A Thoughtful Faith.

In this two part interview, Gina and I discuss the precise reasons why "apostasy" was a bogus charge used to oust me from the church in spite of my clear testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, my belief in the Book of Mormon, and acceptance of the divine calling of Joseph Smith as prophet, seer, and revelator.

We examine how the current purge of some of the church's most faithful is beginning to impact the church at large, as an increasing number of devout members are forced out on the flimsiest of excuses; how numerous violations of Church law are routinely employed in church courts to railroad the faithful, and why I continue to call myself a Mormon despite being expelled from the corporate wing of the Church.

You can Download Parts One and Two directly from the website.

These interviews can be considered a further exploration of the issues introduced last week in the two video interviews previously conducted for Mormon Stories Podcasts, available for viewing Here and Here.

                                                                     *****

Related Posts:
Conduct Unbecoming A Member of the Church

Yerrrrr OUT!

Previously: Interview With The Apostate

The year before he and his brother were murdered, Joseph Smith taught us something valuable about the kingdom of God, and how it can be detected:

"Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives his oracles, there is the kingdom of God; and where the oracles are not, there the kingdom of God is not." (Documentary History of the Church, Volume V, pg 257)

Whew. Lucky for us our leaders have assured us the oracles are right here among us. As we are reminded again and again, the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles today are the Lord's "living oracles." So we can be satisfied the kingdom of God is in good hands and all is well in Zion.

Or can we?  I wouldn't be so quick to presume. As one of my favorite legal analysts was fond of saying, that statement "assumes facts not in evidence." 

What that commonly held belief does assume is a definition of the word "oracles" that is not found in scripture, and was never intended by Joseph Smith when he used the term. It seems even further at odds with the meaning the Lord gave that word whenever He employed it.  You need only read Joseph Smith's words in the statement above to figure out that when the prophet spoke of oracles he was not referring to himself or any of the other Church leaders of his day. Better yet, read the prophet's entire speech beginning on page 256 of the DHC (Volume 5). Joseph uses the word oracles again and again in a lengthy talk that goes on for four pages of very tiny print, and in every instance you'll find he is referring to something God has given to man going back to the time of Adam, not something that can be easily mistaken for a man.

When attempting to get at the meaning of statements made by God and through His founding prophet, we would benefit by observing this counsel from President Spencer W. Kimball:

"Many of the misunderstandings and differences of opinion in scriptural considerations result from a lack of definition of words and terminology, far more than in difference of opinion." ( The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pg 136)

But before we look into what oracles are and were always understood to be, it may be instructive to first examine the meaning of the phrase "kingdom of God," because that term is also widely misunderstood.  As the kingdom of God was predicted to eventually roll forth and consume the whole world, many members today assume that the kingdom of God spoken of in the Book of Daniel is the LDS Church they proudly belong to.  After all, isn't that the goal of our massive missionary efforts? To have our church go forth and fill the earth with converts to Mormonism?

Well no, that's not the goal.  The goal is to see the kingdom of God go forth.

This modern assumption that the church and the kingdom of God are one and the same is a false one. It was never taught by our founding prophet. Joseph Smith understood The Kingdom of God to be something distinctly separate from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As pointed out in a previous post, many of us think that a baptism performed in this church represents a person's initiation into membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when in actuality baptism has nothing to do with "joining the church."  As Charles Harrell writes in This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology, "Scholars note that baptism was initially performed by John the Baptist and Jesus's disciples as a cleansing rite to prepare them for the coming kingdom of God, which was perceptually distinct from the Church."

An adequate description of the kingdom of God is beyond the scope of this post, but a recently published book, The Council of Fifty: A Documentary History examines in detail the model Joseph Smith created in March 1844 in anticipation of the millennial reign of Christ. This model was put in place a full 14 years after the Church was organized.  So again, not the same thing as the Church.

In a conference talk given by Brigham Young in 1855, some insight into how the kingdom of God on earth might be expected to operate was revealed.  Apostle George Q. Cannon and others affirmed these basic principles had been taught to them by Joseph Smith as well.  Here are some excerpts from Brigham's talk:

"When the Kingdom of Heaven spreads over the whole earth, do you expect that all the people composing the different nations will become Latter-day Saints? If you do, you will be much mistaken. Do you expect that every person will be destroyed from the face of the earth, but the Latter-day Saints? If you do, you will be mistaken."

"Jesus taught his disciples to pray that the kingdom of heaven might come upon the earth, and when it does come, you will find that it will be very different from what many people are imagining or expecting it will be. Its spirit will be to preserve their individual rights sacred to the inhabitants of the earth."

"As observed by one of the speakers this morning, that Kingdom grows out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is not the church, for a man may be a legislator in that body which will issue laws to sustain the inhabitants of the earth in their individual rights, and still not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ at all."

"The order of society will be as it is when Christ comes to reign a thousand years; there will be every sort of sect and party, and every individual following what he supposes to be the best in religion, and in everything else, similar to what it is now."

"When the Kingdom of God is fully set up and established on the face of the earth, and takes the pre-eminence over all other nations and kingdoms, it will protect the people in the enjoyment of all their rights, no matter what they believe, what they profess, or what they worship. If they wish to worship a god of their own workmanship, instead of the true and living God, all right, if they will mind their own business and let other people alone."

"And further, though a man may not even believe in any religion, it would be perfectly right, when necessary, to give him the privilege of holding a seat among that body which will make laws to govern all the nations of the earth and control those who make no profession of religion at all; for that body would be governed, controlled, and dictated to acknowledge others in those rights which they wish to enjoy themselves. Then the Latter-day Saints would be protected, if a kingdom of this kind was on the earth, the same as all other people."

"It will be asked, 'What do you want to do, ye strangers from afar?'  'We want to live our own religion.'  'Will you bow the knee before God with us?''O yes, we would as soon do it as not;'  and at that time every knee shall bow, and every tongue acknowledge that God who is the framer and maker of all things, the governor and controller of the universe. They will have to bow the knee and confess that He is God, and that Jesus Christ, who suffered for the sins of the world, is actually its Redeemer; that by the shedding of his blood he has redeemed men, women, children, beasts, birds, fish, the earth itself, and everything that John saw and heard praising in heaven.

"They will ask, 'If I bow the knee and confess that he is that Savior, the Christ, to the glory of the Father, will you let me go home and be a Presbyterian?'  'Yes.'  'And not persecute me?''Never.''Won't you let me go home and belong to the Greek Church?''Yes.''Will you allow me to be a Friend Quaker, or a Shaking Quaker?''O yes, anything you wish to be, but remember that you must not persecute your neighbors, but must mind your own business, and let your neighbors alone, and let them worship the sun, moon, a white dog, or anything else they please, being mindful that every knee has got to bow and every tongue confess. When you have paid this tribute to the Most High, who created you and preserves you, you may then go and worship what you please, or do what you please, if you do not infringe upon your neighbors."

"Under the influence and power of the Kingdom of God, the Church of God will rest secure and dwell in safety, without taking the trouble of governing and controlling the whole earth. The Kingdom of God will do this; it will control the kingdoms of the world."

Now of course, not having been there in person to hear Brigham's talk, we might miss the slightly facetious tone in some places; his attempts at delivering his point in a humorous way.  His point, however, is that under the benign rule of the King of Kings, the rights of all people will be respected, and religion as we know it will cease to be divisive.  It's likely all who bend the knee and confess the name of Christ will consider themselves members of the church of God if any such "church" is even deemed necessary by then.  I'm inclined to think the kingdom of God will obviate and supersede religious denominations as we know them today, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of what use would factions be in a kingdom ruled by God?

How Will We Know It's The Kingdom?
In order for there to be a kingdom, there must be a king. And in order for the king's subjects to know the kings's will, they must be able to hear his voice. That's where the oracles come in.

In the modern LDS Church today you can find no shortage of erroneous definitions for the term "oracle." Just do a word search at LDS.org, and you'll see plenty of instances where the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are referred to as "our living oracles."  Pop culture today is filled with references to oracles as living beings (the oracle Neo is seeking in The Matrix turns out to be a wizened old woman), so we can be excused for our confusion.  But we should never confuse pop culture metaphors with scriptural truth.

In religious contemplation, an oracle was never a human being. An oracle is a message that comes from "the divine other" which is spoken bythemouth of a human being . It refers to the words spoken by God using a human being as his mouthpiece. The Interpreter's Bible Dictionary traces oracle to the Hebrew word for "say," literally "speech, utterance, pronouncement."Oracle, in turn, comes to us from the same latin root as the words "oral" and "oratory" by way of the sanskrit asya, meaning "mouth."

The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that oracles are variously defined as "divine utterances" or "divine communications." In one or two places in the bible, the Urim and Thummim is referred to as an oracle, and oracle has been used to define the place in the ancient Jewish temple where divine utterances were received by the high priest. But an oracle is properly the "oratory" coming from the Divine, speaking through a medium such as the Urim and Thummim, or speaking through a prophet. Never is an oracle defined as the person receiving the divine utterance. That appears to have been a later etymological interpretation.

Even in Greek mythology, when we read of people seeking out the oracle at Delphi, the woman at Delphi they have come to hear is not the oracle. She was a priestess named Pythia who spoke the words put into her mouth by the God Apollo. Apollo's words were the oracles. As early as 500 B.C. we read of oracles received through a prophetess named Sybil. Again, Sybil is not referred to as the oracle; she is known as a Seer who receives the oracles from the Divine, then writes those oracles down.

In Joseph Smith's day oracles were commonly referred to as revelations, the words the prophet spoke as he received them from the Lord (D&C 21:5). These oracles were received through Joseph Smith, but spoken in the voice of God. The words Joseph spoke were not his own; they were unmistakably the words of Jesus Christ. Browse through your Doctrine & Covenants and you'll see Jesus begins every oracle by introducing Himself as the speaker.

Look at how the Lord himself used the word oracle in the 19th century, and see if you think he is referring to any person or group of persons:

"All they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them, lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall..." (D&C 90:5)

Does it appear the Lord is concerned we might stumble and fall after holding members of the Church hierarchy in our arms because we mistakenly thought they weren't going to be very heavy?  Or do you think He is warning us not to take His words lightly?

Well, it must be talking about how hard it is to hold the leaders, because the Church lesson manual for this chapter (lesson 96) states, “An oracle of God is a person through whom the Lord speaks His mind and will to the people.”

Where in that section of the Doctrine and Covenants can we deduce that definition for an oracle? Nowhere. The committee that authored the manual just made it up.



Here's a statement the authors of that manual got right:

“The Lord informs the world in this revelation that it is through His prophet that His revelations will be given unto His church.”

That's absolutely correct. But they put that statement directly over a photo of Thomas Monson and his two counselors.  The inference is clear: the revelation given to Joseph Smith in section 90 is meant to apply equally to them.  Yet anyone reading that revelation can see that what is revealed by the Lord in that oracle is directed at Joseph Smith only.  You can't even make that revelation stretch to fit any of Joseph's contemporaries, let alone some future Church executives a hundred and eighty two years later.

Even if it were true that members of the Church hierarchy today act as mediums "through whom the Lord speaks His mind and will to the people," why hasn't the Lord utilized them for that purpose in our day the same as he did when he used Joseph Smith as his mouthpiece?

In another revelation, the Lord tells Joseph that one of the purposes of the temple would be "for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations..." (D&C 124:39)  And what was Joseph expected to do after receiving those conversations?  As he always did: he conveyed them word for word to the members of the Lord's church, so that they, the members, could receive the oracles exactly as the oracles had been delivered to him.

Joseph did not keep these oracles to himself. Neither did he stand up in conference and summarize the message in his own words, or waste time quoting the wit and wisdom of his friends in the Quorum of the Twelve.  Nor did he boast about how he and his fellow general authorities were now some new-fangled mash-up of "living" oracles.

No, what the prophet of God did every time he received God's oracles was this: he repeated those oracles word for word "as he receiveth them" from God so the people could know the will of their King. 

This strange hybrid term "living oracles" was never uttered by God or by Joseph Smith.  Of course the earliest converts to the church, former acolytes of the Campbellite Baptist tradition, would have recognized "The Living Oracles" as the title Alexander Campbell had given to his 1827 Greek translation of the New Testament. Campbell gave his scriptures that title because he felt (rightly in my opinion) that the King James translation was obsolete and often inaccurate. This newer translation contained the "living"  oracles of God, so named because they proved more vital than the Jacobean translation.

The first instance I find of the phrase "living oracles" in pioneer times was by Wilford Woodruff, a full eighteen years after the prophet Joseph's death; and even he did not appear dumb enough to try and attach that label to himself and his fellow GA's.  A careful reading of Woodruff's use of the term shows the need for all members to seek continuous personal revelation, or "living oracles" to guide them in their day-to-day endeavors.  "President Young tells us that the living oracles should be our guide," declared Woodruff, "that, in fact, we should have the living oracles within us always...It is the privilege of every man and woman in this kingdom to enjoy the spirit of prophecy, which is the spirit of God," Woodruff continued, "and to the faithful it reveals such things as are necessary for their comfort and consolation, and to guide them in their daily duties."

Certainly Brigham Young did not consider himself a "living oracle" or even a seer capable of conveying divine communications:

 "I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel” (Journal of Discourses 5:77)

and, 

"The brethren testify that brother Brigham is brother Joseph's legal successor. You never heard me say so. I say that I am a good hand to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock... I do not think anything about being Joseph's successor." (Journal of Discourses 8:69).

Why Don't We Hear The 'Divine Utterance'?
Although many members of the church continue to receive personal revelation individually, we ought to recognize that institutionally the LDS Church today is running on fumes.  For all the talk we hear about having prophets, seers, and revelators in our midst, not one of them has presented a bona fide prophecy or revelation to the membership in over a century and a half.

Are these men in fact receiving revelations, yet keeping those oracles secret from the rest of us and choosing not to pass them on?  If so, why? Revelations are supposed to be published and presented to the body of the church so the people can get a witness from the Holy Ghost that what they are hearing is indeed an oracle from God's mouth to our ears. Without hearing the revelations word-for-word, how are we supposed to get that witness?

 "If we do not get revelations," the prophet Joseph cautioned back in 1843, "we do not have the oracles of God. And if they do not have the oracles of God, they are not the people of God." (DHC, Supra)

As members of the so-called true church, that statement should give us pause. Because if we are not the people of God, we will not be the ones helping to usher in the coming kingdom of God. The Lord will have found another people for that task.  He said nothing would stop His gospel from rolling forth; he never promised it had to roll forth at our hands. We tend to forget that in 3rd Nephi 16:10 He predicted he may have to take it from us.

I have to believe that sometime in the twentieth century, some member of the Church hierarchy took note of that statement Joseph Smith made about the importance of having oracles, and came up with what he thought must have been an ingenious solution: "since we already call ourselves the living prophets, let's just change that to 'living oracles' and make like it's the same."

Problem solved!

Beware Of Foolish Pride
When teachings of the modern Church seem to conflict with what the Lord has revealed to us in scripture, I find it helpful to consider this advice from Brigham Young:

"Our people on every hand are inquiring, 'what does this scripture mean, and how shall we understand this or that passage?' Now I wish, my brethren and sisters, for us to understand things precisely as they are, and not as the flitting, changing imagination of the human mind may frame them." (Journal of Discourses Vol 3, 336)

We hear a lot these days about foolish pride. I'm just beginning to understand how those two words -foolish pride- fit together to perfectly describe some in the church today.  Because it's one thing for a group of men to be constantly claiming they receive God's oracles while failing to produce those oracles to the church for examination. That smacks of pride to me.

But for these same men to claim theythemselves are the oracles?  That's pride matched with stupidity.

                                                                         *****
Related Posts:

Where's The Revelation?

Not Quite The Same

Previously: Where Did The Oracles Go?

When a beloved general authority dies, as happened last month with Apostle L. Tom Perry, the internet is flooded with an outpouring of love and fond recollections.  But what to expect when a general authority passes away who was not so beloved? What then?

That's when we get the kind of reactions we saw following the death of Boyd K. Packer last week.  As I write this, there are a mere 43 comments following Packer's obituary at the Deseret News.  From the ones I've read, they tend to follow a certain pattern. "I got to shake Elder Packer's hand once" or "he came and spoke to us when I was on my mission."  Not much there in the way of fond anecdotes that would tell us anything about the deceased man's character.

In contrast, over at the Salt Lake Tribune, a paper whose readership tends to be less deferential to Church leaders than those at the Church-owned news organ, I found well over two thousand comments, most of them arguing over just how much harm Boyd Packer caused individuals within the church while he was in office.  Social media was even less forgiving, as the news of Packer's passing was met with a flurry of giddy celebrations. Many duplicated each other by sending around a video clip from The Wizard of Oz where the happy munchkins are joyfully dancing and singing "Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead." 

Yikes.

One of the more reserved comments I read on Facebook following the announcement of Packer's passing was this one:

"Apparently it's rude to speak ill of the dead; maybe because they're not around to defend themselves. If we speak lovingly of them even if they were awful and caused great harm, then are we contributing to the delusion that they were above reproach or that their ideas weren't harmful and wrongheaded?  Now that Boyd K. Packer is gone I can say that I'm just mostly relieved....I sure hope for my kids and their kids that the archaic, barbaric, and cruel ideals of this man will go to the grave with him. If I can say anything nice about Boyd K. Packer it's that he gave his greatest gift to the world when he died."

Another commenter summed up the feelings of many with this simple assessment:

"If he wanted to be remembered kindly after his death, he should have been kinder while he was alive."

Not A Packer Fan
For my part, I'm not known to be overly fond of Boyd K. Packer. It has been my shared opinion he may have done as much harm to the church in the 1980s and 90s as any single anti-Mormon activist in that period. Certainly he had a greater facility for offending and driving liberal-minded members out of the church than he had for keeping them in. He famously condemned and alienated an entire class of Mormons -three categories of Mormons, actually- when he declared that the three greatest threats to the church were homosexuals, feminists, and intellectuals."[1]
___________________________________________
[1] Boyd K. Packer, To the All-Church Coordinating Council. I actually agreed with Packer's assessment at the time. Today I don't see any of these people as a threat to the church I love. I now recognize that homosexuals are human beings; the term "feminist" is a loaded label often misconstrued to mean anything its detractors want it to mean; and as for intellectuals...well believe it or not, some people are calling me an intellectual these days, so I'm no longer as prejudiced against that label as I used to be.

Paul Toscano, a passionate member who twenty years ago was expelled from the church for criticizing its leaders, was asked by an interviewer if he felt anyone had left the church because of something he wrote. He replied, "I'll stack my body count up against Boyd K. Packer's any day."

Though a prominent leader in the church for some 45 years, Packer somehow never seemed to engender the kind of accolades often showered upon his peers, and at times that seemed to bother him.  He was the type of person of whom people might say "you either love him or you hate him."

But he was also the type of person of whom other people said, "you either hate him or...you don't really hate him too much." Although most of the five million active members in the church probably held him in high regard, a significant number were either extremely passionate in their opinions against Boyd Packer, or they felt nothing for him. In the community of disaffected believers I was acquainted with, that was pretty much the length of the entire Packer Likeability Spectrum.

As for myself, I did not shed a tear at the news of Packer's passing. At one point I even joined in with the online criticism.  Then later that day I read this comment from my friend Brian Bowler, which made me realize I was in need of an attitude adjustment:

"Boyd K Packer, in my feeling, began to change the last 7 years. He gave a talk in his ward in 2008 that was a change from what came before. Though some of his thoughts focused on the church, he spoke from the heart and I believe he was right about many things. I believe all of us, Including a Priest (Alma) can change. I will not be an accuser of a man. I believe President Packer was confused in many ways, but he also seemed to change at the last, and had moments when he did appear to see past the curtain.

"I believe the Church today will waver more and more. Packer at least had a moral compass, even if it was off at times."

Brian's words brought to mind something I had once heard from Maxine Hanks. Maxine had been among the so-called "September Six," a half dozen believing members who had been questioned and cast out of the church, it was alleged by some, at the request of  Boyd K. Packer. At least one or two cases were linked to Packer.[2]
_________________________________________
[2] The late Malcolm Jeppsen, a member of the Seventy and best friend of Boyd Packer since childhood, admitted in his unpublished memoirs to the role he played as agent for his friend Boyd Packer in engineering one of these disciplines, that of Avraham Gileadi. (Gileadi's expulsion was later ruled a mistake; he was reinstated, and all references to his excommunication expunged.) 

According to Joseph Smith, it was a violation of Church law for any apostle to interfere with matters regarding members of a stake:
     "The Twelve will have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof where there is a standing High Council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the church."(quoted in William Shepard and H. Michael Marquardt, Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism's Original Quorum of the Twelve, pg 85-86)


Maxine Hanks tells how, many years after her excommunication, she encountered the aging Boyd Packer on temple square, sitting in a wheelchair looking frail and weak.  She said hello to him, and he smiled at her with a welcoming gesture. Yet Packer did not recognize the woman whose life he had affected nearly twenty years earlier. "I found myself feeling nothing but compassion and love for a man who had once seemed like an enemy," Maxine later recalled.

I sense that is the way Christ would have me react. Last week upon hearing of the passing of Brother Packer, Maxine wrote this on her Facebook page:

"His death is still hard to grasp; it feels monumental.  When I saw myself at odds with him in the 1990s, our views seemed mutually exclusive; yet I thought I understood him. Later, over the years, I read him more closely, understood him better, saw things we actually agreed on, things I'd never noticed before. Ultimately, I'm grateful for a grace that enabled me to find some healing with him before he died. Whatever we all have learned from our relationship with him, I pray that our experiences will help us focus on healing wounds, no matter how deep, and moving forward in the Church."

There is an unexpected benefit to discovering common ground with someone we may have once thought of as our enemy, and I admire Maxine's grace in this instance. I have to admit that in spite of some of the major differences I've had with Boyd Packer over the years, I too have discovered positions of his, particularly in recent years, that I completely agree with.  Last week I even quoted a statement by him in the appeal I submitted in response to my own excommunication.  If you think it surprising that I would find something Boyd K. Packer said as a useful argument to bolster my own position...well, you're no more surprised than I am.[3]
____________________________________
[3] I will be posting that twelve page appeal in its entirety on this blog once the recipients have had sufficient opportunity to review and decide upon it.

Forgive and Forget?  
Forgiveness is one of the most difficult things our Lord asks of us. It may be our privilege to fester in our anger and frustration over the iniquity of others, but it sure isn't healthy. It only serves to poison our souls.  Thank goodness administering justice is above our pay grade. It is the Lord's to administer, not ours. So, no matter the harm we have received at the hands of another, we get to leave it in His hands to deal with. Jesus reminds us, "of you it is required to forgive all men."

Learning to forgive prevents us from remaining bitter about the actions of others that we can't control anyway.  Forgiveness enables us to move on. But does forgiveness require us to ignore the harm someone has done us?  Does it mean we condone the sins of another, particularly when those sins have detrimentally affected so many? Does it require us to act as though nothing ever happened?

I submit it does not.

My wife and I were close friends with another couple in our California ward. Some years ago the husband died. Fortunately for his widow, he left behind a sizable amount of life insurance, enough to support her and her young son for the rest of their lives.

This widow knew a trusted member of her stake who was a successful real estate developer, and he offered to help her invest that money. The money went into a local sure thing, a can't miss commercial development.  Because of the man's status as an informed financial expert, and especially because he was also a respected member of the stake high council, our friend had complete confidence that her insurance money was safe with him, and trusted the man with nearly all of it. This was in 2007.

Well, you know what came next: 2008.  The bottom completely fell out of the commercial real estate market, and our friend's money was gone. All of it.  In spite of this, the widow continued to have every confidence that the man would find a way to repay her "because he's a good member of the church."

But the man couldn't possibly pay back her money.  He didn't have it.  He had lost his own money as well as hers because he had turned it all over to someone else, and that someone else lost it, too. The money was gone, plain and simple. 

So here's the question: Is our friend required to forgive the man who lost her money?  Of course she is. God requires it. And to her credit, she did forgive him.

But in so forgiving, is she required to pretend the loss never happened? Or to condone the damage done to her?  No she is not.

Our friend suffered mightily because of that loss. She was thrown into poverty and forced to depend upon the government and church welfare systems just so she and her child could survive.  So although she has forgiven the man and learned to move on, it doesn't change the harm he did to her life. How responsible to her future well-being and the well-being of her son would she be if she did not learn from the experience and resolve to be just a little bit more careful in the future?  Shouldn't she do what she can to make certain such harm is never repeated, either to herself or to any other?  Is there a lesson in there somewhere she could benefit from?

I'd say there is. And here it is: Just because a man is a member of the church with a high calling does not automatically mean he is incapable of making mistakes or doing harm.  Even the most well-intentioned person may not always do right by you.

Repentance is a process that often requires we forgive ourselves as well as others.  I have come to realize that sinning -falling short of the mark- is an essential part of what we were put on this earth to do, and most importantly to learn from.  God is not surprised when we fall short; he fully expects it of us. He doesn't get angry or frustrated with us when it happens. (Unless we keep making the same dumb mistakes over and over that tend to bring harm to others. The scriptures show that does seem to irk him somewhat.)

I've found that when I have committed a mistake or a sin that I'm in need of repenting of, the Lord really has only one question for me: "Did you learn anything?"

If I can recognize the lesson and learn from it and apply what I learned, I'm usually able to move on and do better. If I can't -or won't- learn from the experience, I remain stuck in my sins.

How equally important is it then, when we are sinned against, as some trusting latter-day Saints undoubtedly were by the apostle Boyd K. Packer, to learn from his mistakes and ours, by resolving not to fall into the trap of trusting in the arm of flesh merely because the person attached to that arm holds high office and station in the Church, but to instead follow the light of Christ within ourselves? This protects us from gullibility and harm, but it also enables us to be healers instead of victims. Or enemies.

There are some faithful members reading this piece who may have never heard about any of the controversies surrounding Boyd K. Packer. All this will be news to them and they might wonder what great harm did Packer actually do?  When I first set out to write this piece, I felt it important to list, document, and delineate the precise wrongs some church members suffered due to Boyd Packer's overbearing zealotry.

But I've changed my mind. I may lay it all out it in some future blog post, but not this week. Not today.

Boyd K. Packer has gone to his reward, whatever that reward is in God's Realm.  But in our realm, we would do well to follow the tender example of Christ, who forgave those who sinned, and reminds us we are all sinners.  Is it possible we can allow ourselves instead to feel compassion for Church leaders when they misjudge us or unjustly act against us? Could we use the truth of who we are in productive ways, rather than conflicted ways -to find common ground or solutions, rather than inflame mistrust?

This week, Brother Packer's family members are grieving his loss, while people they never knew about continue to grieve over the harm some of his words and actions once inflicted on them and their loved ones. There are plenty of reasons to grieve all around, so let's go ahead and grieve. And while we grieve, we might send sincere prayers to heaven on Brother Packer's behalf, recognizing that he was no more or less flawed than the rest of us are in our own ways. Maybe we can make a conscious effort to learn from the mistakes he made, by seeing the higher truth, about ourselves and him, rather than the lesser view we frequently buy into about each other.

                                                                           *****
Announcements:
The annual Sunstone Symposium takes place in Salt Lake City at the end of this month, and I will be one of the presenters there. I'll be speaking on Leaving the Church But Remaining a Mormon: The Rise of Uncorrelated Mormonism.Here's a description from the abstract:

Call them what you will: "Maverick Mormons,""Uncorrelated Mormons,""The Remnant,""Saints in the Wilderness,""Neo-Restorationists," or even "LDS Anarchists;" most Saints who find their spiritual nourishment outside the structure of the LDS Church have two common characteristics: 1.) A devotion to Christ and the principles of the Restoration, and 2.) A belief that contemporary Church leaders no longer receive revelation and are therefore spiritually irrelevant to the church. As their ranks swell, how might these unfaithful faithful affect the future of the church?

I'll be attending all three days, and presenting on Saturday, August 1st at 3:45 in the afternoon. For those who are unable to attend the full conference, tickets to individual presentations are available for only $10.00 each. Directly following me in the same conference room will be a panel that includes Daymon Smith and Denver Snuffer, so I would encourage you buy a second ticket and stick around and help make these young newcomers feel welcome.

A hastily arranged panel of recently branded ex-Mormons will also be featured, among them myself, Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Carson and Marisa Calderwood, and whoever else happens to get caught in the net between now and the end of July.

I will also be hanging around after the conference hoping for the chance meet some of my readers at the Linger picnic at the end of the conference on Saturday. Tickets for that are ten bucks as well. I hope readers of this blog will come up and introduce themselves to me.

All information for the symposium is available at Sunstone.org (a downloadable advance program is there also), or you can call 801-355-5926. I hope to see you there!

"Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and comethunto me, the same is mychurch. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church." (D&C 10:67-68.)

“Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made.” D&C 102:26-27.

My excommunication should be reversed because:
            1) My disciplinary council violated  many of the Church's own rules as laid out in scripture, and as given in the Church Handbook of Instruction, and 

Procedural Errors

There is No Record of My Disciplinary Council.

The first procedural reversible error is that there is no record of my disciplinary council. Immediately after my stake president informed me of the decision, I requested a record of the notes and minutes of the disciplinary council so I could prepare this appeal. That request has not been honored. I was not permitted to record the proceedings myself.

"... whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven..." 

And verse 9:

"... whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah."

If it's done with authority, it must be recorded. If my excommunication is to be recorded in heaven, a faithful record of it must be made on earth. Since there is no record of my disciplinary council, this appeal serves as the only record on earth. Verse 3 makes it clear that the proceeding itself should be recorded, and not just the decision of the council.

"... there can be a recorder appointed in each ward of the city, who is well qualified for taking accurate minutes; and let him be very particular and precise in taking the whole proceedings, certifying in his record that he saw with his eyes, and heard with his ears, giving the date, and names, and so forth, and the history of the whole transaction; naming also some three individuals that are present, if there be any present, who can at any time when called upon certify to the same, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." (D&C 128:3)

Discipline Was Not Conducted as the Scriptures Direct. 

The second reversible error is that the Disciplinary Council did not follow the disciplinary procedure as laid out in scripture.

"Any member of the church of Christtransgressing, or beingovertaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct." (D&C 20:80)

"And if thybrotheror sisteroffendthee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or sheconfessthou shalt bereconciled.

"And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world." (D&C 42:88-89)

"Now, may I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration." -Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet, by M. Russell Ballard, Ensign, July 2008.

"Social media channels are global tools that can personally and positively impact large numbers of individuals and families. And I believe the time has come for us as disciples of Christ to use these inspired tools appropriately and more effectively to testify of God the Eternal Father, His plan of happiness for His children, and His Son, Jesus Christ, as the Savior of the world; to proclaim the reality of the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days; and to accomplish the Lord’s work. ... I exhort you to sweep the earth with messages filled with righteousness and truth—messages that are authentic, edifying, and praiseworthy..." -To Sweep the Earth as with a Flood," address by David A. Bednar,delivered on August 19, 2014, during Campus Education Week at Brigham Young University.

The Procedure of my Disciplinary Council was Inherently Unfair and Unjust.

I was given little notice of the proceeding and I was given no indication of what the charge would be. I was invited to have witnesses speak on my behalf, but it's rather difficult to decide which witnesses to bring without letting me know what I was being charged against. If I were being charged with being dishonest or embezzling, I might bring different witnesses than if I were being charged with some immoral conduct.

"And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall bechastenedbefore many.

"And if any one offendopenly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may beashamed." (D&C42:90-91)

“Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church; And he that doeth according to these things shall be saved, and he that doeth them not shall be damned if he so continue.” (D&C 42:59-60)

________________________________________


The Charge of "Apostasy" Itself is Unjust

Substantive Charge of Apostasy

Above I have illustrated that my local leaders committed reversible error by not following the procedures laid out in scripture and in the Church Handbook of Instruction. President Monson recently testified of the importance of abiding by the Handbook, and did so in the name of Jesus Christ. Even if I am guilty of apostasy, my excommunication should be reversed because the Church should not treat lightly whether it abides by its own rules or not. All members would be at risk of discipline that is arbitrary and capricious.

I Have Not Met the Definition of Apostasy Under the Church Handbook of Instruction.

"1) Repeated acts in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. 2) Persist in Teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority."[9]
__________________________________

[9] 3) and 4) do not appear to be applicable here. 

 In my first and only meetings, each with my Bishop and Stake President, each man said they were not very familiar with my blog. They never followed up by informing me of any error in my blog. My Disciplinary Council was convened one year later. Since no doctrinal error on my blog was identified to me before the Disciplinary Council, I could not have repeatedly acted in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church. Nor could I have persisted in teaching as Church Doctrine that which is not Church Doctrine, because I was never corrected before the Disciplinary Council.

"As General Authorities of the Church, we are just the same as you are, and you are just the same as we are. You have the same access to the powers of revelation for your families and for your work and for your callings as we do.

"It is also true that there is an order to things in the Church. When you are called to an office, you then receive revelation that belongs to that office that would not be given to others.

"No member of the Church is esteemed by the Lord as more or less than any other. It just does not work that way! Remember, He is a father—our Father. The Lord is “no respecter of persons.” -Elder Boyd K. Packer, "The Weak and Simple of the Church," Oct 2007.

“We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. The plan of the Father was implemented by the Son that we may have the Spirit of the Holy Ghost. The way of the Father is the way of the Son. He said, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'

"Only God can bless us. Only He can sustain us. Only He can cause our hearts to beat and give us breath. Only He can preserve and protect us. Only He can give us strength to bear up the burdens of life. Only He can give us power, knowledge, peace, and joy. Only He can forgive our sins. Only He can heal us. Only He can change us and forge a godly soul. Only He can bring us back into His presence. And He will do all of that and much more if we but remember Him to keep His commandments. What then shall we do? We will remember Him to keep His commandments. It is the only intelligent thing to do."Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge, "The Way," General Conference, October 2008
_________________________________

[10]http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/06/who-you-callin-apostate.html

"But the Lord said, 'I am the way.' He said, 'Follow me.' He said, 'What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.'

"Jesus Christ is the Way. Every other way, any other way, whatever other way is madness."Elder Corbridge, The Way, General Conference, October 2008 Ibid

"And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—

...to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church." (D&C 107:91-92)

The Evidence Does not Show that I Teach False Doctrine

The "Evidence" Used Against me was Misconstrued

1. I teach people to not go to the temple, 

2. I teach people to not pay tithing, and

3. I teach people to not obey the Word of Wisdom.

I do not Teach that People Should not go to the Temple

"By all means, get yourselvessealed in the temple..."[13]

“All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,” the scripture stated, “should be solemnized ina public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..."

“...The persons to be married,” are to be “standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left...” (D&C Section 101:1, Original 1835 edition) (Emphasis mine.)

"The Church insists on its ... members’ right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution." -First Presidency Response To The Supreme Court Decision Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in the United States, June 29, 2015

___________________________________

[13] http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/02/go-ahead-and-skip-that-temple-wedding.html

I do not Teach that People Should not Obey the Word of Wisdom.

"An excess amount of beer can be detrimental to the liver and other parts of the body."[16]

The confusion possibly arises when I show that the Word of Wisdom not only permits the drinking of beer, but it actually prescribes it.  See verse seventeen:

"Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain."[17](Emphasis added)

I do not Teach that People Should not Pay Tithing

"Oh, [tithing is] very clearly an obligation, make no mistake about that. We are told that if we fail to observe the law of tithing (in this instance, at least, the Lord uses words such as "observe" and "keep" in lieu ofobey), we won't have a Zion society.

"The Lord is very clear that it is to be strictly kept, at least by those who wish to remain worthy to abide in Zion."[18]

Erring in Doctrine Does not Warrant Excommunication

"Elder Pelatiah Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have around us, and whom I now see before me, has been preaching concerning the breast which was full of eyes before and behind; and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council. 

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (DHC 5: 340.)

“Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities."-Background Material for First Presidency Response To The Supreme Court Decision Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage In The United States, June 29, 2015

 ______________________________________

Why Would I Want to be a Member?

"It is the power by which the Lord makes Himself manifest unto those who believe in Him. Every good thing depends on getting and keeping the power of the Holy Ghost in our lives. Everything depends on that." Elder Corbridge, The Way, General Conference, October 2008

"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

"There is room for you.

"I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here.

"Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.

"If these are your desires, then regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!

"If you seek the pure doctrine of Christ, the word of God 'which healeth the wounded soul,' and the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost, then here you will find them. In this age of waning faith—in this age when so many feel distanced from heaven’s embrace—here you will find a people who yearn to know and draw closer to their Savior by serving God and fellowmen, just like you. Come, join with us!" -President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Come, Join With Us," General Conference October 2013

Previously: The Actual Message of the Book of Mormon

I wish I lived closer to Ohio, because on the weekend of May 9th, Sunstone is sponsoring an event featuring participants from all the various Mormon traditions: Josephites, Brighamites, Strangites, and maybe even a fundamentalist or two, along with a smattering of non-members and former members of the various offshoots of our once unified community.  These participants will be gathering that weekend to discuss their differences, but mostly to recognize the commonalities they share.

Little did the six original members of that fledgling church imagine that within 14 years of its founding, an estimated 25,000 converts would join their ranks to headquarter at Nauvoo, Illinois. Nor did they expect that quite suddenly the church would splinter off in all directions, its members bickering over questions of doctrine and leadership.

It's fitting that this historic gathering, culminating in a Sunday worship service as in days of old, will be held within the walls of the Kirtland temple itself, a venue that was constructed long before either the prophet or his associates ever suspected their descendants would end up biting and scratching at each other for generations to come over petty issues.  We may still have our differences, but most of us accept and revere the Book of Mormon. Why not recognize what unites us, despite our other differences?  (If you are at all able to attend this event, you'll find registration information here.)

If factions of the original 1830 Church of Christ can celebrate their commonality, I wonder: why am I seeing petty online bickering between members of my own denomination? A mutual, civil argument is a wonderful thing. Even God is in favor of that. "Come," the Lord says through Isaiah, "Let us reason together."  But the spirit of God does not attend us when we quarrel, which is as distant from a reasoned argument as one can get.

It's too bad the word "argument" is so misunderstood these days. Arguing is one way we can learn new things from one another. A civil argument persuades through the use of reason, logic, and common sense, with the aim of coming to an understanding.  But having a civil argument is not the same as being argumentative. An argumentative person is quarrelsome and contentious and tends to stir up anger. Our scriptures teach us that the spirit of contention is of the devil (3 Nephi 11:29).

The argumentative person is often motivated by pride. He believes he knows more than you do, and maybe he does; but a quarrelsome person rarely wins his opponent over. He considers it a win if he succeeds in a verbal beatdown of his opponent. God's favored method is persuasion, and in order for persuasion to be effective, an argument cannot be presented smugly, but in a spirit of gentleness and meekness (D&C 121).

Arguing To Win 
In the past year or two, I have both followed and participated in countless online theological discussions with my fellow latter-day Saints. The great majority of these engagements have been enlightening and edifying for all involved. But I've followed some very cantakerous quarrels that never reached a happy conclusion, eventually fizzling out with bad feelings overall. I think it's a travesty that any two members of the church of Christ would become angry with each other over points of doctrine. But that's what happens when ego enters the ring. Your ego wants to win, so you have to leave your ego out of it. Unless you want to ultimately lose.

On more than one occasion I have seen petty bickering devolve into accusations that, because one party does not hold the same views as the other feels he should, that party is not a "proper" latter-day Saint, or not devout enough, or lacks faith, or even that maybe he or she just isn't good enough to abide within our ranks and should just leave the church and join another denomination, because clearly their views are not in harmony with the mainstream of the church. I've had accusations like that thrown at me merely for promoting the idea that scripture trumps myth, false teachings, and vain traditions.

Yet our founding prophet rejected the idea that members should be required to believe a certain way or get out.  Strict religious dogmatism smacked "too much like the Methodists," Joseph Smith insisted, "and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (Lyndon Cook,editor, The Words of Joseph Smith, pg 184)

Joseph taught that doctrinal differences should never divide us, but that we should focus on that which unites us all. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed?" the prophet asked. "Well, so do I. Christians should cease wrangling with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Pg 314)

Do you want to learn how to win an argument with a fellow Mormon?  All you have to do is make sure the other guy wins, too.

You do that by hearing him out. Rather than attack him, seek to understand his point of view. If he holds to an interpretation of scripture that differs from yours, patiently explain your own reasoning as to why you feel that scripture means something other than what he believes, but do it with kindness, meekness, and love unfeigned (D&C 121).  We Mormons deserve to explore our religion together.  Mormon theology is a vast topic none of us really has a complete handle on, so let's dive in and learn together. This is not a contest between us. The gospel of Jesus Christ is meant to insure that everybodywins.


Where Is Your Shovel When There Is Work To Be Done?
I have a promise to keep that I made in the comment section back in February to a young antagonist who went by the initials "AW." AW had expended quite a bit of effort trying to goad me and other readers into a fight over issues I don't even recall anymore. Before he left in a huff with his final comment (Come back, AW! We miss you! ), he posted a link to a Google Doc that he said "sums up my feelings about this blog." (Note: AW's feelings about this blog were consistently negative.)

I clicked on the link, which brought me to a document entitled Letter To Rock Waterman.doc. As I read the letter, there was something very familiar about it, and sure enough, I soon realized it had been written by my friend Mark Foree of Snowflake, Arizona.

Of course, Mark was not my friend when he wrote me that letter over a year ago. In the letter Mark vigorously takes me to task for quite a number of things. That letter is a thorough rebuking, and if most of the assumptions Mark made about me were true, I would be the first to admit I deserved every bit of that drubbing.

Mark's impetus for writing me was he felt my blog had unduly influenced his cousin, and he felt she was in danger of apostasy because of that influence. (In case you were wondering, Mark's cousin remains stalwart in the faith to this day.)

At the time he wrote that letter, Mark had posted it on Google Docs so that his cousin could access it, and then forgot all about it. Unbeknownst to Mark, however, that letter eventually made its way into the hands of our friend AW, and AW had not been aware that there is quite a bit more to this story.

So to clear Mark's good name (but mostly because I thought some of you would enjoy seeing someone tell me off but good), I told AW that in a future post I would provide the rest of the correspondence that took place between Mark and I. This seems like a good place to do that, as our correspondence demonstrates how two humble followers of Christ can come together in commonality in spite of other differences we may have. (And there are still some things Mark and I disagree about.) Mark has graciously given me permission to reprint our correspondence below:

From: Mark Foree

Brother Waterman:

I came across your blog "Pure Mormonism" because of my cousin who is impressed by your ideas. My cousin sent me by email one of your blog postings about "When Mormons Take the Name of The Lord in Vain" and I sent a reply which she posted in the comments section of your blog, and I read your reply to mine in which you felt that I was quite angry. I believe that I was responding to a purposefully offensive article and I did not know who the author was. She had sent me your article without your name on it and I wasn't sure that she wasn't the author. This past weekend I discovered your blog by Googling the title of your post. I have now read several others of your articles. You must be retired. You have way too much time on your hands.

Normally I wouldn't be interested enough to respond to blogs and articles like yours. But for several reasons, I think I must say something to you about yours. If we met in person, you'd see that I am just a likable person like I am sure that you are, and we could have some good conversation about whatever topic you like, and even if we didn't see eye to eye, we would probably part as friends. But, when the platform of your opinionating is public, and when I feel to doubt your purposes, I feel I must say something and it will probably be that you think I am a real disagreeable fellow.

But Brother Waterman, your blog is the most pessimistic meandering of wasted time that I have read in a long time. I have to ask. What is the purpose of your blog? There is nothing in your blog that lifts people. There is nothing there that encourages people to improve. There is only discontentment with the church in both content and leadership. What are you trying to accomplish? If your purpose was to disprove the truthfulness of the restoration, I could understand that. If your purpose was to prove it, I would understand that. But Brother Waterman, I have read your blogging and I think the primary purposes of your blog is to make your self sound smart, gain a little attention, and to proselyte Mormon distrust and negativity. I see no other explanation from your collection of negative and complaining postings. What good are you doing? Are you preaching Pure Mormonism? I don't think so.  

Again, I ask, what are your intentions? Are you friend or foe? Should I be impressed with your blog? What should I be? Should I want more information from your ideas so that I come back thirsting for more? Should I be convinced that the gospel as preached in the church is true, or was true, or will be true? Should I love the church except for this part and that part, or those other parts? Or as you suggest, should I go to church and take the sacrament each Sunday, then leave? Should I sit at the feast and eat only the meat and skip the drink, the appetizers, and the desserts?

Since when do Mormons encourage other Mormons by telling them that conference is boring, and the church isn't quite good enough for full attendance? Since when do faithful Mormons complain that the prophet should teach us more new things? Since when are the worst parts of our history the foundation of our history? Are you so blinded by your own antagonism that you can't see the forest for the trees? Where is the beauty of the Gospel of Christ in your blog? I know the subtitle of your blog mentions it, but I read at least ten of your posts top to bottom and I see no hint of it. I know that "Pure Mormonism" is the name of your blog, but where is the optimism that makes people want to get up and serve their fellow man? Where is the HOPE of salvation? Where is the Mormonism?

I am not going to argue point by point as to whether Joseph Smith hated or loved polygamy, or whether the Church Office Building is too corporate. or whether the Church does or doesn't tell us enough about church finances, or whether the church should or shouldn't own an airplane or a business or invest in down town Salt Lake City retail shops. But, I challenge you. I challenge you to put the joy of the gospel into your blog. I challenge you to stop complaining in your blog. Do you really think that if Joseph Smith were alive today, he would be more aligned with your complaining than he would be President Monson's encouragements for us to serve our neighbors? I doubt it seriously. Joseph was too happy a person to let himself be weighed down bemoaning this, and bemoaning that. The whole tone of your blog seems to be that you think you are too good for the church. You place yourself above the rest of us by your apparent belief that we sheep are not thoroughly instructed in the history of the church or the details of church management because if we were we would be like you and spew sour grapes.

Where is the good intent in your blogging? It irks me that many of the people commenting on your blogs are being drawn into your lack of hope by your negative lecturing. My own cousin whose Mother was an outright angel and faithful to the core believes that you are wise. And, I don't care how many trivial or supporting historical quotes you can muster to prove that the church should have done this or should have done that. What I want to know is where are you and where is your shovel when there is work to be done? Where are you when the service projects are going on? How many hours do you spend hoeing weeds in widows yards with the Teachers quorum ? How many hours do you spend preparing lessons and doing your home teaching? That's what I want to know. Your blog makes it seem that you spend so much time on the periphery of the gospel that you aren't enjoying the gospel because you are too busy nit-picking the history and mechanics of the church.

I know that I don't know you. I hope I am wrong and maybe I am being too judgmental myself. Maybe you are a scout master or a bishop. Maybe you volunteer hours each week at the family history library. If so, that's what I want to know about. That is what "Pure Mormonism" should talk about. Maybe you are at the temple each week. Maybe you spend your own money buying treats for the Beehives. Maybe you visit the sick. I really don't know. But judging only from your blog, I highly doubt it.

Have you looked into the eye of an inactive father who got to spend a week with his son at scout camp because the bishop was in tune enough to call him to be assistant 11 year old scout master? Have you seen the beauty in the eyes of a young woman who overcame her fears and bore her testimony to her friends? Have you seen these things and forgotten them? Have you listened to a less than perfect priesthood lesson given by a struggling brother, and then been overcome with the Spirit as he bore his testimony at the end of the lesson? Have you missed what Mormonism is? Time and again in your comments and in your posts, its as though you are waiving a flag that says, "Look at me! I am a little smarter than rest of you, and I am really a lot smarter than President Monson." Maybe I am missing the positive parts of your writing, or the gospel parts of your blogging. Maybe I just didn't read the right post. But, good grief, if you are going to have a title of "Pure Mormonism" then it ought to be found everywhere in the blog!

Mormonism is the best and most hopeful doctrine in the world. There is no other theology, science, or philosophy that even comes close. And, I believe that it is true. Your blog is nothing but the negativity of the world trying to take down the highest aspirations of man.

I am not a Mormon because I do or don't have a testimony of polygamy or any other by-gone practice, or that the church office building runs or doesn't run only by angelic visitations, or that the cattle ranch in Florida is fully owned by this church corporation or that one. I am not a Mormon because I hate war or like war. I am not a Mormon because of any of the ideas expounded upon so thoroughly by your "Pure Mormonism" blog. I am a Mormon because I WANT to be. I am a Mormon because I can see and feel the glory of it. I am a Mormon because of the way I feel when I sit in sacrament meeting, Sunday school class, and elders quorum. I am a Mormon because of the change I see in people when they are baptized. I am a Mormon because of the way I feel baptizing 14 year old boys 20 times for a list of people long dead. I am a Mormon because of the way I felt when I and 14 other 17 year old white boys knelt in a pineapple field in 1978 and thanked God for the revelation allowing black brethren the priesthood. I love the hope of the Gospel that is framed in the Church. I am a Mormon because I believe a young boy who was no scholar, saw angels and translated an ancient book! I am a Mormon because I hope that I can become better than I am. I am a Mormon because I believe that Christ got up from that slab and that he appeared around the world and showed himself to people who fell at his feet and with tears in their eyes kissed his feet. I am a Mormon because of my failings and my sins, because I have hope that through repentance in Christ I will be clean when he comes again. I am a Mormon because of the way I felt when my wife came through the veil when we were married AND sealed in the temple. I am a Mormon because of the tears my wife and I have shed in the celestial room of the temple when waves of relief came over us as worries about our children were lifted if only for a time. I am a Mormon because I have felt the fire of the Spirit when I witnessed 21 young men sing the Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning in the middle of a rain and lightning storm in the middle of the Arizona woods. I am a Mormon because of countless spiritual experiences, and because of the inspiring and hopeful words of ancient prophets. This is Mormonism, and it seems to be missing from your blog.

And, Brother Waterman, I believe that negative blogs like yours do not lead people to feel the way I feel, or hope the way I hope. In your blog, where is the Mormonism?

-Mark Foree, Snowflake, Arizona


From: Rock Waterman rockwaterman@gmail.com

To: Mark

Hi Mark,

Happy to hear from you. I'm afraid I won't be able to address your questions more completely at the moment, as I'm about to walk out the door (service project, believe it or not. I've been lending assistance, both financial and time to a young mother who has been homeless. For now, at least, her young family has found a place in the garage of another family). So I'll have to get back to you sometime later.

The short answer as to why I do what I do is because I'm dismayed at the deluge of people leaving the church today, and I am hoping to help stem that flow. Based on some of the feedback I have been getting, I have seen some success for my efforts. I find this exodus from the the faith both dismaying and unnecessary.

Now, I realize that from the impression you have of my blog so far, you might find the above statement puzzling. Interestingly, I've been invited to be interviewed for a new series of podcasts entitled "A Thoughtful Faith" which features latter-day Saints who can see the current challenges in the church yet remain devoted to the faith. I just finished listening to the first entry, an interview with Greg Prince, who was David O. McKay's biographer.

It occurs to me that if you are sincere in wanting to know what motivates me, that if you will listen to the podcast of Brother Prince, you'll understand me better, for his views are very close to my own and his feelings echo many of mine. It was a great interview. Here it is:
http://athoughtfulfaith.org/2012/08/19/001-gregory-prince-a-manifesto-for-change/

I found it a bit difficult to find the Download button, so if you have trouble, try this link directly to the Quicktime launch:

http://athoughtfulfaith.org/podcast/AThoughtfulFaith-001-GregPrince.mp3

I actually don't have a lot of time on my hands as you suggest; that's why I only blog about once a month. Most of my time not spent caring for my invalid wife is spent in service to others. That is because for the past five years I have been in the process of repenting for my previous life of half-hearted compassion, which was performed more because I was assigned to those projects rather than from a burning desire within to actually make someone else's life less of a struggle.

My blog is a part of that process of repentance, as I have awakened from the realization that most of my life as a member I have, like so many others, embraced vain traditions that I thought were a part of my religion, but that turned out not to be doctrinal. By sharing the errors I have made with others, I hope to prevent them from diverting from the true path as I once did. It is only by holding to the iron rod that we can be assured we won't wonder off the path which leads to the pure love of Christ.

If you haven't gotten a feel for what I believe is most important in the gospel, which is love and kindness toward others; I guess you just haven't gotten to those posts yet. Keep at it, you'll eventually find something good and decent about me, I hope.

As to your question, where is the pure Mormonism, in this piece I shared how I feel both the Savior and our founding prophet understood it:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-do-i-mean-by-pure-mormonism.html

Anyway, gotta go; thanks for writing. I am sure you and I could have a friendly, civil conversation one on one as you suggest, and I would like that very much. Understanding is the key. I hope the links I provided will direct you to a better understanding of who I am and what I love about the gospel of Jesus Christ. If, after listening to the Greg Prince interview and looking a bit further on my blog, you would like to talk on the phone, please call me Saturday or Sunday at________. I'm running way low on minutes, so the weekend or after 9 pm my time are the only way I can afford to have a leisurely chat.

Love and Light,

Rock

P.S. the idea that I think I'm smarter than anyone else is one that would never occur to me. Anyone who knows me personally can attest that I'm as dumb as a post and I know it.

From: Mark Foree

Thank you for answering. I will try to read more. I listened to the Greg Prince interview.

From: Rock Waterman rockwaterman@gmail.com

To: Mark Foree

Hi Mark,

I told you I would let you know when my interview posted, so I apologize for not getting back to you. You can find links to three separate podcasts I participated in last month on my current blog site. The personal interview is the third one, here. Hopefully you'll find something in there that will redeem me in your eyes.

Love and Light,

Rock


From: Mark Foree
Thanks. I have read a little more. I have a suggestion. My opinion of your blog was largely based on your list of the most popular posts which are the ones that I read first, as any new comer to your blog would. If a person reads more of your posts they get a broader view and not as much that it is just a blog for whining as some of the most popular seem to me. I suggest that you remove the "most popular" list from your blog. I think this would have helped me to not have quite as drastic response when I came across your blog. Then a reader can look back at prior posts if they want. I still disagree with some of the points you make and how you present them, but I found more of the Mormonism in your blog than I initially thought was there.


Rock Waterman rockwaterman@gmail.com

To Mark

Thanks for responding, Mark. That list of ten most popular is generated automatically based on the number of hits each post receives. I kind of like it being there, because for one thing, that list includes the pictures accompanying the article. I wish the list would allow more, say twenty pieces, but ten is the limit and I don't know how to program it different or even if it would allow me to.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that most of those top ten seem to be more on the critical side; I had not realized that. If I had my way, I would put "What Do I Mean By "Pure" Mormonism" on that list, because that is, to me, one of the more important ones. That's why I keep it near the top of the "More Favorites" list, which I can better manipulate in order of timeliness and importance.

I'm guessing the top ten are the ones getting the most hits because there is a growing mass of members who embrace the faith, yet find something disconcerting about the way management is behaving these days, acting absent direct revelation, and so on. Friends and family members of these people, knowing of their concerns, send them links to those posts they feel might help them, and that boosts those particular pieces up the list. I believe this awakening is important, and I also am learning that my tiny contribution is having a positive impact among people who normally might have thrown up their hands in frustration and left the church, rather than remain in and being their light.

I recently heard from a reader who had left the church, but is now scheduled to be rebaptized tomorrow. He credits my writings as influencing his decision to return. There is also a rather lengthy comment from someone you can find on "A Thoughtful Faith" following my podcast who says something similar. I receive these encouraging messages frequently, and that's what keeps me going.

So, although this is not all your cup of tea, Mark, there are people who need to hear this kind of message from a fellow believer, and who benefit from it. I like knowing I'm helping a little. Remember, we are not charged with building up the Church, but rather the Kingdom of God, which is separate from the Church.

Love and Light,

Rock

From: Mark Foree

Rock:
I just now read your post "Bad Science, Weird Science, and Strange Mormon Prophecy" and I really enjoyed it. I'll have to read it again when I have more time. I also just went to Amazon and bought the Kindle version of the Daniel Brooks book. I served my mission in Thailand and so am interested in the Buddhist connections with the subjects you discussed and I'll try to learn more when I have time. I admit that I am not as knowledgeable about these ideas as I would like to be. But, I have recently had science and some of these types of things on my mind.

I have a friend, a young man in our Ward who is 16 years old who is our neighbor, who recently "left the church". He truly is a great kid, who is smart and likable. I was his scout master and really wish I could help him. I've tried to open some discussion with him by email, but he only responded once, and I feel not to push him too hard. He should be blessing the sacrament now, but he can't because he is still a teacher. His parents are at their wits end and they are not prepared for the kind of challenge that their son has now presented them with. His parents are good and faithful but not intellectual people. To keep peace in the family the parents have had to "give up" trying to "force" him to come to church. He has stopped attending seminary. As part of their compromise he joins in the family circle for family prayer but that is it.

This young man's challenge isn't pornography or any of the challenges you might think of. His problem isn't that he was using the internet for porn, but for atheism. He was using his iPhone and the family computer to access atheistic websites. He has completely lost whatever testimony he had that there is a God at all. This came out when the bishop was interviewing him to be ordained a priest, he simply told the bishop that he doesn't believe in God.

Before this came out with our friend, I had recently enjoyed reading John A Widtsoe's book, "Joseph Smith as Scientist". And, I had enjoyed some YouTube presentations about String Theory by physicist Brian Greene some of which were aired on PBS on Nova. Then my bishop asked me to speak in sacrament meeting. Our bishop likes to have a general topic for the month for all the talks and so my talk was on humility. Due to my concerns for this young man and for the other young people in our ward, I used the opportunity to put up a defense of the existence of God. My friend wasn't at church that day, but per his mother's request I did email him a copy and he has implied to me that he will read it.

Another of the young men in our ward recently thanked me for my talk and said that it really helps him put what he learns in school in perspective. Due to some other conversations that I have had with other parents it seems that with the availability of so much information over the internet, we as parents have got to be much more educated to make a defense of our beliefs than was ever required before. I am attaching a copy of my talk. It's not scholarly but it has some logic to it, I think. Anyway, thanks for your post, it has some of the wonder and hope of Mormonism that I love.

[Attached to Mark's email was a pdf copy of his Sacrament Meeting talk, "A Call for Humility: A Defense of God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth."]

From: Rock Waterman rockwaterman@gmail.com To Mark That was a remarkable talk, Mark! Here's hoping your friend reads it. I do get letters now and then from people who have left the church but find that after reading some of my stuff, they see they don't have to throw out all the teachings.  I'm praying for your friend.  Find something among my stuff you think he can relate to and send it to him.                     Rock  Agreeing NOT To Disagree So, who won this argument? Mark did, of course. And so did I. We both won because even though we don't see eye to eye on everything, we do have common ground as brothers in Christ. What better kind of friendship is there than that? "In reality and essence," Joseph Smith taught, "we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love." In spite of the volatility of Mark's first email, you can see in his list of reasons stating why he is a Mormon quite a few reasons that would fit me also, though he had no inkling at the time we had so much in common. Subsequent to those emails, Mark and I have kept in touch off and on. In fact, we were on the phone together just yesterday. Do you want to know what I really like about Mark Foree? This is a man who lives his religion. He serves willingly. Mark is not one to stand by and wait to be assigned, but jumps right in whenever he sees a need.  Where is his shovel when there's work to be done? It's already slung over his shoulder and ready to go. In that respect Mark Foree is years ahead of me. For a good part of my adult life, I was slow to grab a shovel when there was work to be done. In recent years I've attempted to make up for my former slothfulness, and I look at men like Mark Foree and strive to be more like him. So I'm not at all offended that Mark told me off.  All of us deserve to be yanked up by the collar now and then. Keeps us from getting carried away with our own self-importance. If Mark had written that letter to me today and I wanted to give him the opportunity to better understand where I'm coming from and my motivations for blogging, I would have suggested last month's guest post by Brett Bartel, The Actual Message of the Book of Mormon along with My Testimony of the Church and Who You Callin' Apostate? As for posts of mine that tend to focus on the salient aspects of our religion, two that come to mind are Of Alms and Offerings and The Opposite of Fear. If you currently hold views about the Church that others consider unorthodox and are looking for links to send to loved ones in order that they can more properly understand where you are coming from, those five are some I might recommend. Find That One Thing What about those we just can't seem to get along with? Let's face it, even with all we should have in common, some members of the church just plain come off as insufferable. Apostle Hugh B. Brown taught the importance of finding an "area of agreement" with our opponent. Most of us can find some commonality we hold with even the most obstreperous foe. If nothing else comes to mind, reach down deep and remember your shared humanity. All of us can tune into the spirit, which permeates the ether in and around us. You can link spirits with anyone, no matter how distant they stand from where you are. As the upcoming symposium in Kirtland demonstrates, those of us who are sons and daughters of the Restoration have more that unites us than divides us. Although testimonies may vary in degree, most of us share a belief in Jesus Christ, an appreciation for the Book of Mormon, and an acceptance of Joseph Smith's divine calling.  But as we are all different, we can expect to have differences of opinion even regarding the religion we all espouse. Still, I don't believe any two people who share a kinship through the gospel of Jesus Christ need let those differences divide them. The Golden Rule isn't called golden for nothing. It's Jesus' single greatest teaching, and it works like magic if you remember to employ it in your daily life. Making the effort to understand one another the thing that will enable us to make friends of those who might otherwise dismiss us as unworthy.  "The grand fundamental of Mormonism," Joseph Smith taught, "is friendship." I'd like to see us focus more on that grand fundamental and not get overly heated about those things that divide us. Once we make it past this life and look back, we'll realize it didn't matter how often we were right. What will matter is how often we were nice. UPDATE May 5, 2014: Eagle-Eyed reader Frank has informed me that the link to Gregory Prince interview that I referred Mark Foree to is no longer valid. The interview can now be found by clicking here. Related Post: Danger Is My Middle Name                                                                       ***** Announcements, Announcements, Annow-ownce-ments! New Podcast Interview Earlier this month I had the privilege of being interviewed by the inimitable John Dehlin for the famous Mormon Stories Podcast Series. The interview is in Two parts, both of them accessible here: Mormon Stories Podcasts No. 463 & 464 I hasten to add that the interview is in two parts, as some people thought the first hour was all there was. Also, a vigorous discussion is already underway in the comments area of the page linked to, so please join in after listening. Away With Anonymous! Again, I must remind my readers that all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted. I hate doing it, so please abide by this rule and spare me the angst. I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifier so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others who tend to post as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not. Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous. When you post using that method, I don't have the ability to track who you are (not that I would want to) and neither does anyone else. So it makes sense to use that feature if you wish to keep your true identity hidden. All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part. Of course, if you want to further mislead others, you can put any link in the URL box you choose, such as Youtube.com, Amazon.com, or LDS.org Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one. But seriously, enough with all these people calling themselves "Anonymous." It's getting to be too much. That having been said, please join the conversation below.

Previously: "How To Argue With A Mormon And Win"

One of the strangest occurrences that took place after the sudden death of Joseph Smith in June, 1844 was that almost immediately his followers rejected the things he taught them about not holding a grudge.

The first reaction of the Saints to the news that Joseph and Hyrum had been murdered was disbelief.  Joseph and Hyrum dead? It was inconceivable. But as the truth of the deed was confirmed, disbelief gave way to overwhelming grief. The grieving period was short-lived, however, turning quickly to anger and demands for retribution against the killers.

Which is understandable. Who wouldn't want justice? But when only five members of the mob were brought up on charges, and all of them (no surprise) acquitted by a jury of non-Mormons, the Saints began calling upon God to exact His own swift vengeance. William Clayton's prayer of revenge was typical of many, which he recorded the day after the murders took place:

"And now O God wilt thou not come out of thy hiding place and avenge the blood of thy servants.—that blood which thou hast so long watched over with a fatherly care—that blood so noble—so generous—so dignified, so heavenly you O Lord will thou not avenge it speedily and bring down vengeance upon the murderers of thy servants that they may be rid from off the earth and that the earth may be cleansed from these scenes, even so O Lord thy will be done. We look to thee for justice. Hear thy people O God of Jacob even so Amen."

Again, an understandable response, if not exactly Christlike. There is, after all, a difference between seeking justice and seeking revenge, but this is the early church so let's cut these folks some slack. I probably would have reacted just like Clayton, hoping God would smite those smirking killers who snuffed out the lives of Joseph and Hyrum. A perfectly understandable reaction.

Except right after the jury voted not guilty and the killers got away scot free, Clayton demanded God enlarge the scope of his wrath to include the entire population of the state of Illinois just to get even with that jury:

“Thus the whole State of Illinois have made themselves guilty of shedding the blood of the prophets by acquitting those who committed the horrid deed, and it is now left to God and his saints to take vengeance in his own way, and in his own time.”

Seems a little harsh. I'm sure there were people in Illinois who had never heard of Joseph and Hyrum, let alone wished them any harm.

Curse Of The Gentile Nation
I've recently become friends with William Shepard after discovering his writings on Mormon history,[1] so I'm currently reading a piece of his published in a back issue of The Journal of Mormon History entitled "The Concept Of A 'Rejected Gospel' in Mormon History." Shepard provides several examples of the Saints' intense desire for bloody retribution, and I was struck by how many of these early Saints were so blinded by grief and anger and a gnawing demand for "satisfaction" that they didn't care if every man, woman, and child in America was wiped out in the process. In fact, that's what they were hoping for. They soon laid the blame for the prophet's murders on the entire nation, and hoped to see America utterly destroyed for reasons that made little sense. As Shepard reports,

"For most of the nineteenth century, Brigham Young and the Twelve saw in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith the final proof that the Gentile nation of the United States had reached the fullness of iniquity, had rejected the gospel, and would soon be cut off from salvation..." -Journal of Mormon History Volume 34, No.8 (2008)  (Subsequent quotes are from that article.)

 __________________________________________________________
[1].  William Shepard is co-author (with Michael Marquardt) of Lost Apostles, the latest must-have book on Mormon History that you likely won't find at Deseret Book. Find out why by reading this free excerpt.


William Hyde, who was on a mission in Vermont when he heard of the murders, predicted in his journal  “For that blood the nation will be obliged to atone.”

And this from Wilford Woodruff's Journal:

“I asked my heavenly father in the name of Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the Keys of the kingdom of God that he would speedily avenge the blood of Joseph the Prophet Seer and Revelator, and Hiram the Patriarch, which had been shed by the hands of the American gentile nation, upon all the heads of the Nation and State that have aided, abetted or perpetrated the horrid deed, of shedding the blood of those righteous men even the Lords anointed.”

This call for the destruction of America looks to put a crimp in the church's missionary efforts, but they didn't care. The Mormons figured the rest of America had had their chance, and by gum they were dusting their feet and done.

Most Mormons weren't patient enough to wait for God to get around to exacting punishment, but vowed instead to take matters into their own hands. After viewing the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum, Allen Stout took a personal vow of revenge:

"I there and then resolved in my mind that I would never let an opportunity slip unimproved of avenging their blood upon the head of the enemies of the church of Jesus Christ. I felt as though I could not live. I knew not how to contain myself, and when I see one of the men who persuaded them to give up to be tried, I feel like cutting their throats. And I hope to live to avenge their blood; but if I do not I will teach my children to never cease to try to avenge their blood and then their children and children's children to the fourth generation as long as there is one descendant of the murderers upon the earth."

Pretty heavy, right? The surprising thing is, Stout's keening oath was pretty typical of the time.

Mosiah Hancock tells how, at ten years old, his father Levi had him place his right hand on the cold bosoms of Joseph and Hyrum in turn, and raising his left hand to the square the kid then swore a similar oath to that of Stout's, "which vow I took with a determination to fulfill to the very letter."

If merely getting even with the killer's descendants was enough for some, others like Orson Hyde were barely able to contain their enthusiasm for bringing on the destruction of their home country:

“Carthage Jail presents a scene of blood, and that blood has not been avenged; and when the time can come, and when it can be ordered in wisdom in the heavenly council, the scourge shall come.  And when you see these things come to pass, then rejoice and be exceeding glad.”

Orson Pratt, who referred to the enemy Americans as as "bloodthirsty Christians," was downright giddy in anticipation of the coming apocalypse:

 “It is with the greatest of joy that I forsake this Republic: and all the saints have abundant reasons to rejoice that they are counted worthy to be cast out as exiles from this wicked nation; for we have received nothing but one continual scene of the most horrid and unrelenting persecutions at their hands for the last sixteen years.”

If it seems a bit impatient for the Saints to give up on America after only sixteen years of proselyting, it's worth noting that Apostle Parley Pratt had predicted the second coming would occur by 1845. So America's time was clearly up.

Wilford Woodruff viewed the Saint's abandoning the United States as necessary so that “the judgments of God might be poured out on that guilty nation that is already drunk with the blood of the Saints."

The editor of the Millenial Star wrote:

“and they [the Mormons] will go forth shaking off the dust of their feet upon her [United States], and leaving their curse upon the doomed and fated people and rulers of the United States.”

And let's not forget the Oath of Vengeance inserted into the temple endowment by Brigham Young:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."[2]

I've never been quite certain what it means to "defile the temple," but the introduction of something as distasteful as this into a sacred holy ritual would top my list. It would be hard to come up with anything more in opposition to the gospel of peace than to implore God to murder your enemies for you in the very place Jesus Christ purportedly calls Home.

Happily, Almighty God chose not to act on those vindictive supplications, but we shouldn't take that to mean those who offered those imprecations weren't ready to do their part if the opportunity arose. Apostle Abraham Cannon tells how, when Hyrum's son Joseph F. Smith returned to Carthage at age 21, he encountered a man who said he had arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Young Joseph F. came this close to knifing the poor guy before learning the man had disapproved of the killings. (Kenney, "Before the Beard: Trials of the Young Joseph F. Smith,"Sunstone, November 2001.)
______________________________________________________________________________________
[2].  The Oath of Vengeance was removed from the endowment ritual in 1927, thank goodness. Yet there are some Fundamentalists who take its removal as one more evidence that the everlasting ordinances of the temple have been changed. Just proves you can't please everybody.

Anyway, you get the idea. A handful of men committed a horrendous crime, and the victim's friends couldn't wait to make an entire nation of innocents suffer for it. I couldn't help thinking there was something familiar about all this. Then I noticed the calendar showing Memorial day approaching, which brought back memories of vindictive conversations that took place in my ward priesthood quorum in the weeks following the attacks of September 11th.

Discussions of what should be done to the perpetrators often crowded out the scheduled lesson, with some in the class expressing hope that the U.S military would immediately retaliate. The military did retaliate, of course, and there was no shortage of young latter-day Saints rushing to join the fight.

But fight who? Even if you buy into the conventional narrative (which I don't) that the perpetrators of 9/11 consisted of 19 Arab hijackers armed with boxcutters, the perpetrators of that crime were now all dead by suicide. Justice served, wouldn't you think?

Nope. Those deaths weren't enough to satisfy the bloodlust of most Americans, least of all many of my Mormon brethren. I heard proposals from my fellow Saints wishing our government would just nuke the entire middle east and get it over with.  Our nation had been breached by unknown assassins, and they refused to be consoled.

Millions did pay, of course, including many of the young soldiers who so enthusiastically participated in our national revenge fest. A dozen Memorial Days have come and gone since the first cries of vengeance were heard, and today, thankfully, the voices are more subdued.  Americans have died in these wars of vengeance. Mormons have died.

And to what end?

The tired bromide that "they fought to protect our freedoms" doesn't quite wash. Look around. While our idealistic young warriors were occupied fighting phantoms overseas, our freedoms have been seriously eroded here at home. And in the cruelest twist of all, the very politicians most vigorously engaged in eroding those freedoms have officially declared returning veterans to be America's newest enemy.

And why not? There is nothing more dangerous to tyrants than a soldier who has awakened to the reality that he has been duped. A former soldier who is fully awake is a threat to the establishment, no matter which party is currently in power.

Is it any wonder the very government agency charged with caring for our returning wounded is dragging its feet and letting soldiers die while awaiting treatment? On The Daily Show of May 19th, Jon Stewart expressed bewilderment:

 "Somehow we as a country were able to ship 300,000 troops halfway across the world in just a few months to fight a war that cost us two trillion dollars -an amount that didn't count towards our deficit because we paid for it somehow under the table. Yet for some reason it takes longer than that to get someone hurt in that war needed medical care or reimbursement, all while we profess undying love for their service."

And John Whitehead recently noted:

"The plight of veterans today is deplorable, with large numbers of them impoverished, unemployed, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, thoughts of suicide, marital stress, homeless (a third of all homeless Americans are veterans), subjected to sub-par treatment at clinics and hospitals, and left to molder while their paperwork piles up within Veterans Administration offices."

We erect monuments to those who die while serving in the military, but those lucky enough to have made it back are learning a harsh lesson:  Their own government really doesn't want them here. You served your purpose. You bought the lie. Now please just go away.

With every Memorial Day that's passed since 9/11, a growing number of Americans -Mormons included- are waking up to the reality that they have been played. Their emotions were manipulated in order to get them to support two wars that have resulted in...what, exactly? Certainly not more freedom or safety.  Americans are less free and less safe than ever before, and the dangers we face today don't happen to have originated with some hapless "enemy" living in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As for the brave Mormon soldier, why did his Church leaders not issue a voice of warning against the secret combinations who were conspiring to undermine the country in his absence? Silly question. Because they were in collusion, that's why.

You think that accusation is a bit harsh? Then I invite you to watch a video that was produced by the corporate Church and distributed on DVD to LDS servicemen and their families to coincide with the start of the war with Iraq. With the passage of time, the reassurances contained in this film ring more and more hollow. 

"What Is My Standing Before God?"
That was a question posed to Elder Robert Oaks of the Presidency of the Seventy by a young combat soldier struggling to reconcile his religious teachings with the obligation the government had put on him to engage in random shootings. This video, which you can watch here on the official LDS Church website, was intended to assuage the concerns of this young man and others like him. Entitled "Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled," it's a blatant propaganda piece that contradicts every legitimate LDS doctrine regarding war ever revealed.

And that's the problem. The film completely avoids addressing doctrinal questions such as where and when it is permissible in the eyes of God for his people to go into battle.  The only place I heard the word of God quoted at all was in the title, which was a comforting reassurance Jesus gave to his apostles at the last supper before he left them, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of  war. The purpose of the DVD is clearly intended to reassure the Mormon soldier he need not worry about the consequences of his actions. Let not your heart be troubled, the narrators tell him. Don't worry about it. You're doing God's work.

From start to finish, this presentation is a disgrace to our religion.

The video is introduced by Boyd K. Packer who assures the young LDS soldier that he will receive blessings for serving his country in this difficult time, and suggests that his efforts as a hired killer may even result in missionary opportunities. See son, you're not a mere soldier, you're actually a gol-durned missionary in fatigues! Sure, you may one day be forced to kill an innocent Iraqi family, but look on the bright side: You're helping the Kingdom of God roll forth.

There is an excerpt from President Hinckley's conference talk given in April 2003, a talk that has given Hinckley a degree of posthumous fame as the most equivocating prophet ever in the history of the Church.  It was full of useless platitudes, and devoid of any useful doctrine. That talk couldn't have been more insidiously brilliant if it had been written by Lucifer himself. Don't believe me? Go read it for yourself.

The video shows us a short clip of apostle Robert D. Hales speaking before a roomful of young recruits and assuring them "You are the defenders of the constitution."

 Really? Defenders of the constitution?  I wish you'd walk me through exactly how that works, Bob, seeing as the government that recruited these kids violated article one, section eight of the constitution by failing to obtain authorization from the people through their congress to wage this very war in the first place.

We used to have actual theologians as members of the Twelve, not just former business executives who happened to distinguish themselves in the corporate world. I wonder what Robert Hales would think if he ever got around to reading D&C 98:7 where the Lord declares that, pertaining to the laws of man, whatsoever is more or less than the constitution comes of evil?  Non-members can believe what they want, but we Mormons can't have it both ways. According to the revealed word of God, either a war is constitutional, or it's evil. You can't send Mormon kids to fight an unconstitutional war and tell them they're defending the constitution.

Where's The Theology?
My guess is that anyone watching this video on their way to the front is hoping to understand how God feels about the adventure they are about to embark on. Anyone raised properly in the church is bound to have some reservations about being required to kill strangers. Hopefully, this DVD the Church has provided will answer their troubling questions.

But the word of God is never used to bolster the feel-good message of this film. The viewer is introduced to Lance Wickman and Robert Oaks, two general authorities who were once career military men, and they offer their wartime stories about how life in uniform can be both difficult and rewarding.  Instead of delivering a message the LDS soldier can use, apparently it was thought the departing soldier could better identify with GAs who once had military careers. Too bad neither of these guys seems to know anything about LDS doctrine as it pertains to the issue at hand.

The message of the movie can be distilled in one sentence: War is dirty, nasty work, but it's unavoidable and necessary, so thank goodness we have righteous young priesthood holders like you to handle that dirty, nasty work that is for some reason unavoidable.  Oh, and by the way, thank you for your service.

Although the word of God is never quoted in this video, the twisting of scripture is apparent in several places. At one point Elder Wickman looks into the camera and says,

"Many have asked why so much of the Book of Mormon dwells upon battles and warfare. The answer, I believe, is that Mormon and Moroni understood exquisitely that we would also be forced to contend with war and bloodshed as we strive to live according to the teachings and examples of the master in these last days."

Holy cow. Face palm, anyone?

I'm usually considered the dumbest guy in the room, but even I can see that Oaks got the message of the Book of Mormon wars completely inside out.  What Mormon and Moroni understood exquisitely was that the record they wrote would one day be in our hands and they wanted to make super duper certain that we did not make the same stupid mistakes their people did.  Mormon compiled the record and included all those chapters about war so that we gentiles could understand two essential teachings:

1.  God's people have a right and a duty to defend their homes, their families, and their lands from invasion. We are justified in repelling those who invade our homes and lands, even to the taking of life, if necessary.

2.  God's people are never, ever, EVER justified in taking the battle into the enemy's lands. When we do that, the enemy is justified in repelling us for invading their homes, lands, and families, even to the taking of our lives.

 There you go, Wickman and Oaks. I just saved you both a lot of reading.

In Boyd Packer's segment of the video, behind him on the wall we see the famous Arnold Friberg paintings of Book of Mormon war heroes Helaman and Captain Moroni. Packer even quotes a scripture from Alma showing that war is sometimes justified to defend our lands and families. But what he fails to remind the viewer is that these men are heroes because they repelled invasions, not because they led invasions. They did not fight because they chose to, but because they had no choice. Their lands were being overun, so they stood in defense of home and country. And this is the key element: they stood their ground and defended from inside the borders of their own country, not in someone else's.

We honor Captain Moroni as a great patriot not only because he stood up to the foreign enemy, but also because he challenged the corrupt manipulators behind the politicians at home. Tyrants quake at the thought of an army of awakened Moronis returning home.

If Lance Wickman wants to understand why Mormon and Moroni included all that stuff about war, he should have consulted Mormon himself, who tells us explicitly why he stopped participating in the wars with his Nephite Brethren:

"It came to pass that I utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard, according to the manifestations of the spirit which had testified of things to come." (Mormon 3:16)

Did you catch that, Wickman? Mormon didn't include those war chapters because he understood we would be forced to contend with war and bloodshed. He did it to warn us to beware of our own pride and hubris that could easily lead us into unnecessary and destructive wars. He included those warnings in hopes we would be able to tell the difference between being forced to go to war and choosing to go to war. His entire personal saga is a warning to us to carefully differentiate between repelling an invader and being an invader.

Here's what got Mormon to throw down his sword in disgust and quit his own army:  A large force of Lamanite warriors had crossed over into Nephite territory and, mirabile dictu, the Nephites won the battle! They managed to drive the superior force of Lamanites all the way back across their own borders and back where they had come from.

This unexpected victory drove the Nephite soldiers out of their heads with exhilaration. They had actually beaten back the mighty Lamanites!  They started cracking open beers and chanting whatever the Nephite equivalent is to "U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A!!  (It's all there in Mormon chapter 3, I swear.)

Next thing you know, the Nephite soldiers, full of piss and vinegar after that decisive victory, got it in their heads that they should put their armor back on and cross the border deep into the Lamanite's homeland so they could finish this thing with the Lamanites once and for all. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

That's why Mormon quit, because he knew God does not protect the soldier who is the aggressor, and he refused to have any part in such goings on. That, Lance Wickman, is the lesson we are meant to take from the war chapters of the Book of Mormon.  Here is how the Lord himself revealed that doctrine in the latter days:

"This is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them." (D&C 98:33)

The Lord goes on to instruct us that this law still holds for us today except that today we have to be extra careful not to take offense. That's the Lord's doctrine on war in a nutshell, and it sure seems plain enough to me.

So what I would ask Boyd Packer, Robert Hales, Robert Oaks, Lance Wickman, Gordon Hinckley, and every other person involved in the making of that little feel-good pro-war disgrace of a video monstrosity is this: Why didn't you include God's word as a counterweight to your own useless, hollow opinions? Why did you leave out the only counsel that would have really mattered to the doomed young man in my former ward who gave his life for nothing, instead of blathering into the camera about how "the military is a noble profession" and "You are mighty men of valor"?

Maybe if you had been honest in your counsel and presented God's will in all this, there might be one less pair of grieving parents in the graveyard this Memorial day; one less young Mormon widow; one or two less fatherless children. You men had the opportunity to tell the truth to those in your charge, and you failed. You made false promises about military service bringing blessings when you know it brings nothing but death, sorrow, and destruction.

How many additional LDS families will forgo the joyous picnic reunion this Memorial day and instead hang their heads with grief over yet another unnecessary loss of a young son or daughter?

Mea Culpa
I am sometimes accused of being less than deferential to LDS Church authorities."It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church," Apostle Dallin Oaks smugly asserts in this video, "even if the criticism is true."

Oh Yeah, Dallin? Well, I'll tell you what: You just go ahead and show me where the Lord himself has ever made that statement, and I'll give you a dollar. Otherwise it's not doctrinal, so wipe that smirk off your face, stop making up your own rules, and try preaching the gospel of Christ for a change.

Young, idealistic young Mormon men and women are DEAD because they were taught not to question or criticize Church leaders. Other young latter-day Saints are maimed, divorced, depressed, homeless, and suicidal, much of their troubles traceable to the belief that whenever a general authority opens his mouth, even if it's two-bit lower rung GAs like Robert Oaks and Lance Wickman, their very utterances represent the word of God, the mind of God, and the will of God.

These false teachings are causing real harm to actual, living, breathing members of our community, and they need to stop being promulgated right now.

What we could use from you in the next conference session, Elder Oaks, is a talk reminding the members that the leaders are as human and fallible as the rest of us, and that most importantly, a prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking the words God has put into his mouth, and that ANY OTHER TIME, he is presenting his own thoughts and opinions. 

Joseph Smith would not have allowed the members in his day to slather adoration on him, yet you guys lap it up. Joseph had the integrity to rebuke the Saints when he found they were depending upon him and not Christ. He told them that following the prophet was causing them to be darkened in their minds.  Do your duty and teach the Saints that whenever a Church leader teaches contrary to the established word of God, that leader should be shunned and ignored, not slavishly followed like some dark-suited demigod.
                                                                     ****

Okay, I'm not sure where I was going with this blog entry, but it has clearly gotten away from me. I'm going to stop now and go cool down.

When properly observed, Memorial day is rarely a time for celebration, but I wish you all a happy Memorial day just the same.

Love and Light,
Rock


A Note About Commenting:Again, I must remind my readers that all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted. I hate doing it, so please abide by this rule and spare me the angst.

I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifier so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others who tend to post as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not.

Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous. When you post using that method, I don't have the ability to track who you are (not that I would want to) and neither does anyone else. So it makes sense to use that feature if you wish to keep your true identity hidden. All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part. Of course, if you want to further mislead others, you can put any link in the URL box you choose, such as Youtube.com, Amazon.com, or LDS.org

Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one. But seriously, enough with all these people calling themselves "Anonymous." It's getting to be too much.

That having been said, please join the conversation below.

Previously: Vengeance And The Latter-Day Saint

These are interesting times to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Untold thousands of faithful, believing members are now becoming disillusioned with Church leadership.  This disconnect between the membership and those at the top is fueled by the growing observation that the teachings of Christ are not always reflected in the words and actions of some who purport to be His representatives.

Recently, on a Mormon-themed Facebook page, a frustrated member gave voice to her concerns, and the response was nothing short of phenomenal. If a cheering standing ovation could be translated to the printed word, that would be the best way to describe the reaction of those who read her remarkable words.  Her essay has already been shared far and wide, because her concerns are the concerns of many other devoted latter-day Saints who see their Church being virtually stolen out from under them; transformed into something alarmingly different than it was in the beginning -indeed, different even than in recent memory. The author has graciously permitted me to share her words here, so I present them now as this month's Guest Post.

As I and others have discovered, some in leadership positions within the modern LDS Church have not reacted kindly to those lowly members who have drawn attention to the dichotomy between the Church today and the one founded through Joseph Smith.  Since not everyone is in a position to endure the very real persecution that can result when reporting reality within this community, I am omitting the real name of the author and just calling her "Cate."  I look forward to reading your reactions in the comment section below.  -Rock Waterman

                                                    Uncomfortable God
                                                                                                     By Cate

Last April 5th, I gathered around the television with my family to watch General Conference. As active, temple recommend holding members of the church, it’s what we do every April and October. It’s not just a weekend off for me. I’ve actually had a love affair with General Conference since I was a child sitting in a darkened chapel, taking copious notes in spiral bound notebooks I could barely see to write on. The outpouring of powerful emotions and positive messages filled me with a special kind of pride in belonging to the church. My church.

It’s been years since I had to drive across town and spend two solid days in “Sunday clothes” to enjoy conference weekend. With the decades have come the wisdom that every talk isn’t meant for me, that every speaker won’t speak to the particulars of my place along the path of life, and that some Church leaders will misspeak to the degree that talks have to be edited after delivery prior to being printed in Church magazines. Some talks have even been rerecorded, the modified audiovisual presentations supplanting the original. For the most part, I’m just fine with that. The general leadership of the Church, for all the adulation they receive from adoring church members, are fallible human beings. I don’t expect their talks to be perfect.

But I also don’t expect their talks to be dripping with sarcasm and condescension; nor do I expect, with all the very real issues plaguing humanity, for them to target men of straw.  Sadly that’s what I heard this past April 5th.

To put it mildly, I was disappointed by Elder Holland's talk, "The Cost – and Blessings – of Discipleship".  As I listened to Elder Holland, normally a conference favorite, I was taken by how angry and sarcastic his tone was. I was saddened by how targeted his words seemed at certain groups within the church who are grappling with tough issues. Loaded words like "advocacy,""patriarchal,""provincial," and "bigoted" sprinkled throughout the talk seemed to point squarely at families who lobby for civil rights for their gay children, women who struggle with the hierarchical inequity in Church structure, and people like me, who see love -known in the scriptures as charity- as a divine power which never faileth.

Elder Holland came across as angry and condescending. Part of my takeaway,  I'm sure, results from the fact that I've dealt with an increasing number of church members recently who take my pleas for tolerance and compassion as "condoning sin" rather than an invitation to win through charity rather than compulsion.

As I listened to Elder Holland, I had the sinking feeling that his words would catalyze the most judgmental voices in the church, promoting a spirit of division and justifying intolerance. This intuition has been validated numerous times in the two months since the conference, both in church classes and online, as I’ve heard church members define faithfulness to God not in terms of what we stand for, but primarily in terms of what we stand against. President Uchtdorf’s big tent vision, which allows for imperfect members who grapple with complex issues, was instantly replaced with a dogmatic return to lockstep religiosity.

As I write this, I am aware that Elder Holland may not have meant his talk for me. He may have intended to condemn “the world” using the popular ‘us vs. them’ paradigm promulgated by religious leaders ad infinitum. The problem is that when you paint stark black and white lines like he did, those of us who have fought our way through life’s gray are going to feel the brush strokes.

Contrary to cultural mythos, it’s not because we are guilty and hate hard truths. It’s because, as was the case with Job, we’ve lived lives of hard truth and we’ve experienced the complexities of mortality firsthand. We’ve seen beneath the superficial skin of simple dichotomies and have felt the blood of our belief pour from us like water from a sword pierced side. In those forsaken moments, we found God, not a comfortable hand-drawn caricature designed to make us feel superior to others, but a fierce and loving God who demands every last shred of who we are until we are left with no alternative than to cry out “It is finished.”

There is a cost of discipleship. I know it. I’ve paid it. I pay it every single day. And having traversed my own wine press, however incomparable to that of my exemplar, I found a God who was radically more interested in my ability to love my neighbor in spite of his or her fallen state than to draw lines which exclude. I found a God whose love is transformative and whose love, when manifest through me, is a corrective force needing little, if any, accompanying condemnation.  Precisely because I found that God, I found Elder Holland’s words a harsh and demoralizing oversimplification of what I and so many others have experienced:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

"Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of 'comfortable' God. Really? It was He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like 'comfortable' doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"

As I heard these words, intoned with such condescension, I was left to wonder, "Who are these people Elder Holland is referring to?"  I don't know them. I see people around me who are desperate to make this world a better place, myself included. People who refuse to hate others for their sins, often in contrast to the examples they have seen in the church.

I see people who want to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned with more than a plate of cookies and a warm casserole, all while their Church leaders pray over the opening of law offices,dedicate banks, build shopping malls, cater to wealthy elk hunters, and buy up the state of Florida.  I see good people frustrated with being called to repentance by an institution which acts in ways that are sometimes baffling when compared to the words and life of Christ. I see a corporation that has built up a culture through correlated texts and copyrighted media which prioritizes unthinking conformity over true discipleship.

If Church leaders think we are dancing around Woodstock looking for flowers to put in our hair, they are precisely what Elder Holland denies - hopelessly out of touch. Contrary to the insinuation that we, who proclaim an answer in love, seek a comfortable god, I’m disgusted that my Church makes membership so damned comfortable.

Other churches in my town don't own malls. They run soup kitchens. They don't just sponsor BSA troops, they hold AA meetings. These churches help felons find jobs, sponsor immigrants and help their members adopt children from war torn nations. Churches in my city have homeless ministries, outreach programs for the elderly and impoverished, and their women gather to pour out their hearts in prayer for the suffering that goes on around the world. They actively fight against human trafficking, they consciously support ethical trade and are aware of the price paid by third world workers to support a first world lifestyle. They speak against injustice, proclaim peace, and create welcoming environments for people who "sin differently."

They do these things week after week, year after year.

At my church, 90% of what we do is incestuous service; we make dinners for each other, we visit the sick within our own congregations, we go to the temple for our own families. On occasion, we have a community service "project" or the Relief Society makes prescribed hygiene and newborn kits from downloadable patterns available on the Church website. We rarely see the faces of those who most need our service. As a congregation, we are so insulated. So aloof. So free to simply donate money as we plan our next family vacation, shop for a new "modest" dress, or call a plastic surgeon to schedule a mommy makeover.

Is the Church doing significant good in the world's poorest spots? Among inmates? With victims of domestic abuse? I'll have to take the Newsroom’s word for it. Even BYU T.V.’s between conference session media blitz on world affairs shows birthday celebrations and temple dedications, seemingly  prioritizing those events over our emergency response project/PR endeavors. We need hands that help every day. Not just after a storm. But every single day because the world is broken every single day. Because even in our own church, LDS children, a sickening number of them, go to bed hungry every single day.

I assure you, my walk through the gray complexities of life has made me terribly uncomfortable.

And yet we spend so much time on "sin management" at church. We spend so much time instilling fear in the dangers of interacting with the world Christ was sent to save that we have created a religion that only plays defense, as if followers of Christ could live out their faith pointing fingers at their enemies from inside a bunker.

No wonder our people have such problems with porn, divorce, abuse, vanity, and personal sins. We are so busy measuring the borders of our own garments that we can’t see past our own cloaks. For that matter, we have set such a low bar for discipleship that our good people are hopelessly underwhelmed by the dogma of white shirts and multiple piercings and our mediocre members are celebrating the self-mastery of 75% home teaching and being able to efficiently regurgitate an assigned General Conference talk from the pulpit, when invited to speak in sacrament meeting every few years.

We are pitifully uninspired. So yes. Let’s talk about a comfortable God. One who looks on approvingly while we grow in wealth as God’s children in Sudan go hungry.         

Maybe this is why Brigham Young warned of the dangers of affluence.

Further, that village love-in, it's pretty damn hard to organize. You know why? Because it's easier to whisper gossip about a "sinner" than to take her hand and sit down together at a meal as fellow mortal pilgrims. It's easier to kick out a gay child and denounce his "choice" than to relearn how to love him and subsequently acknowledge the worth of the people he brings into your life. It’s easier to exclude than it is to live with the humble recognition that God can and does work in the lives of all people, even when they don't live the standards found within For the Strength of Youth.

And those are the kinds of behaviors justified among our people when you sarcastically dis-empower central godly attributes like love, the power which effectuated the atonement and which never fails. It’s what happens when you relegate mercy, gentleness, and the faith that God knows what He's doing in each of our lives to a hippie mantra. It’s what happens when you speak as if life and the Spirit are less effective teachers than pulpit pounding brimstone. The love-in for that uncomfortable God is awfully hard to organize in a culture that says we prefer our children dead than defiled.

And you know something else? That village love-in isn't the orgy you're imagining.

It's a feast. And a lot of people who've been invited are too busy doing meaningless church work to fit it into their schedule.

Or maybe they are too 'ritually pure' to sit beside the unwashed and unwanted who are being called out of the pews by the loving, forgiving, merciful voice of Jesus the Christ. I'll tell you this – a lot of folks are missing out as they travel the dusty Jericho road on their trek back and forth to church meetings and temple worship while ignoring the bleeding and broken. They are ever hastening the work of recruitment and never coming face to face with Christ in the least of these. And yet they are wondering why the fonts are dry.

How will it be, I wonder, when we reach the great beyond ready to celebrate with ancestors whose saving ordinances we’ve performed only to find ourselves instead viewing, gathered to Abraham’s bosom, a long line of those who sat outside our gates, ignored, from whom we must first plead and obtain forgiveness? Are we so myopic that we believe God applauds our ritual performances while the world outside the temple walls groans in desperate need of our attention? Oh how my God makes me increasingly uncomfortable.

I have seen the Church move in fits and starts toward more engagement with the world outside. Toward healing the world instead of just trying to fill pews. Certainly, I have seen individual members follow Christ into the lives of social lepers and the rejects. I know I am not alone in feeling the disquieting discomfort of a God who tenderly invites, “Come follow me.”

But I also know that most of that divine work is done outside the structure of the very Church which requires all our time, talents, and energy. I wonder when the institution of the Church will stop filing legal briefs and follow her members into the dusty streets of this world to touch and be touched by the broken and unclean? Perhaps the surge of power from hem to hand would heal us all.

My God calls me out into the streets. He leaves me restless with the ache to heal and be healed. It is a throbbing, relentless discomfort that compels me to do His bidding. And when I heed His call, lives are changed. They are transformed without the need for formalized discussions or new member checklists. They are changed because the good news is justthat good.

The gospel doesn't spread by force -certainly not by forced discussion. It spreads by fascination.

And most of our people, having been fed a steady diet of pre-digested milk, are pathetically nonchalant. Starved for a gospel rich in transformative unity with God, they are uninspired by the lackluster offering of platitudes and proscriptions. They are wandering toward agnosticism, atheism, and other churches, not because they are unable to believe, but because the anemic offerings of their church experience have convinced them that God is not present at our self-congratulatory "historic" meetings or in our proclamations drafted by legal teams, however well they poll.

The slow but steady pioneer trail leading out through the chapel doors ought to be noticeable. But if it isn't, just wait a generation.

Those of us who remain seated due to inertia or in the hopes that the vibrant church we've read about in the increasingly available unvarnished tales of our father's faith are talking about things that matter. Things more pertinent to God than promoting modesty to four-year-olds in a Church magazine, things more awe-inspiring than a God who can only conjure warm fuzzies as a witness, things more restorative than endless hours in the pews. And our children are listening. Our children will have no memory of an uncorrelated church. They will see only another religious institution, patting itself on the back in the tradition of Pharisee forebears. A religion proclaiming its chosenness from within its insulated walls.

But you know what? There is good news. In fact, there is great news. This feast, our village love-in, it isn't ending any time soon. Its attendance is growing as more and more frustrated church members across all Christendom relinquish the bondage of certainty and embrace the hope and mystery that is the incomprehensible love of God. It swells with every realization that all men are our brothers and that being chosen is a call to action not an award for merit or the election of a lucky birth. The seats at the feast fill steadily as God fills us with faith in our fellowmen and empathy born of the solidarity of mortal sojourn and we are unified in the Eucharist of abandoning the fear that God will stop loving us "if".

Yes, there is good news indeed. Good news about the feast. And I have it on the only authority that matters - He's saving you a seat.

Postscript: Even though I was disheartened by Elder Holland’s talk, I continue to love this man and recognize the challenging position he holds as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I cannot not love him. My uncomfortable God does not allow it.

                                                                     *****
A Note From Rock About Commenting:Again, I must remind my readers that all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted. I hate doing it, so please abide by this rule and spare me the angst.

I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifier so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others who tend to post as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not.

Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous.  All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part.

Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one.

Previously: Uncomfortable God

I guess my bishop must have been lying to me.

Last month he asked to see me, and when I met with him in his office he told me he had been tasked with delivering an ultimatum from an Area Seventy. According to the message conveyed through my bishop from this Church bigwig, I was to be presented with  three options: 1. Stop blogging,  2. Resign from the church voluntarily, or 3. Face excommunication.

I admire and respect my bishop very much. And I like this guy. I like him a lot. Which is why I'm disappointed to have to conclude that he made up that whole story about the Seventy handing down orders to remove myself from the church.  My bishop's story was very convincing, right down to the name of the actual Seventy supposedly involved. He told me that even though he (the bishop) had never read my blog except for the first few paragraphs of the one on weddings, he explained that this seventy had looked it over thoroughly, and decided I had to go.

This is a difficult position I find myself in because I want to believe my bishop was telling me the truth. But if I buy his story, I have to reject the following declarations delivered by official Church Spokespersons out of Salt Lake the past few days:

"There is no coordinated effort to tell local leaders to keep their members from blogging or discussing their questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue and recognize that today it’s just part of how the world works."-Michael Otterson, Managing Director, LDS Church Public Affairs, quoted in the New York Times June 18th.

 "Decisions [to discipline members] are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters."-Official Church News Press Release June 11th.

"There is no effort to tell local leaders to keep members from blogging or discussing questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue, and recognize that today it’s how we communicate and discuss ideas with one another." -Jessica Moody, Church Spokeswoman quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune June 19th.

 "While senior leaders do provide training, these decisions are made by local leaders and are not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters." LDS Church Public Affairs Office, quoted on KUTV Salt Lake City June 17th

Church leaders are not asking members not to blog, and they are not attacking the rights of honest explorers of faith to have these conversations in the so-called Bloggernacle."Church Spokeswoman Ally Isom on KUER radio, June 16th

Okay, so these are Church spokespersons saying these things, but they're not the real Church Spokesperson, right? Only the President of the Church can actually speak for the Church. So where is he? Why is Church leadership at the top leaving my poor bishop to twist slowly in the wind?

All this wild scrambling to assure the public that Church discipline is never instituted from the top down was triggered by the publicity garnered when two prominent latter-day Saints revealed they had been issued letters informing them they faced imminent excommunication.

And the reason every available person in the Church PR department weighed in so emphatically is because it is a violation of scripture and Church law for discipline to originate anywhere other than on the local level. In fact, it isn't even bishops or stake presidents who are permitted to initiate such actions. The accused member must be first accused by another member of the congregation before proceedings are permitted to take place. That's according to scripture.  Of course, no one follows the prescribed method these days, because why should our leaders follow scripture when they have the Church Handbook of Instruction?

Those two prominent members of the church who were surprised to receive those threatening letters were Kate Kelly and John Dehlin.

Now I'll admit to not having heard of Kate Kelly before this. That's because the movement she is credited with (or in the words of some, "accused of") heading is called "Ordain Women" and the Ordain Women movement simply was not on my radar. It isn't one of my hot buttons, so you'll have to excuse me for not being up to speed on all of this.

I suppose that's because I see no reason for women to petition for something they already hold, which is the priesthood of God. During the Nauvoo period it was common for women to anoint each other and give blessings of healing, same as they had the power and authority to do for their own children.  Our founding prophet Joseph Smith approved, and acknowledged that there were sisters who were ordained to heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so.

So in my mind, what's the big deal?

Well, here's the big deal. Kate Kelly and others want to know what the heck happened to this privilege? And what's most disturbing is that they have been portrayed by Church spokespersons as a gaggle of gals noisily marching on Temple Square with signs and placards, screeching their demands and insisting they get their way.

The reality is a bit less strident. That so-called "march" was more of a quiet stroll. They didn't yell, they didn't demand, they didn't insist, they weren't holding up signs or being unruly. They just reverently showed up at temple square and...well, they just stood around mostly, because no one in authority showed up to meet them. I believe someone led them in singing a hymn.

These sisters are accused of demanding that the Church change its doctrine to suit them.  But what doctrine would that be, exactly? Doug Fabrizio, who interviewed Ally Isom of the Church Public Relations arm asked where the doctrine could be found that states women are prohibited from holding the priesthood. It must be written down somewhere, right?

Ally Isom was the former press spokesman for a Utah politician, and boy is this chick smooth. Throughout the interview she was nonplussed, slick and evasive on questions she wanted to avoid, cleverly putting her own spin on the issue. But this question seemed to catch her off guard. No sooner had Fabrizio asked her where the doctrine is written, than she halted and started stammering. Whatever the word "nonplussed" means, Ally instantly turned into the opposite. She was suddenly extremely plussed, and plussed in spades. As Fabrizio continued to press her on where the doctrine is written down, she finally had to admit "it isn't."

That's right, there is no actual doctrine prohibiting women from being ordained to the priesthood. If there was, we should be able to point to where God provided that revelation. The idea that the priesthood of God is for men only is not a doctrine, it's a tradition. One of those "traditions of men" the scriptures constantly warn us to be on the lookout for.

So what are we Mormons taught to do when we lack wisdom and desire clarification? We do what Kate Kelly has been trying to do. Far from angrily demanding that the Brethren change the doctrine to suit their tastes, the ladies in the Ordain Women movement are only making one small, reasonable request: would the prophet please take this question to the Lord for an answer?

After all, isn't that what a prophet is for? To obtain revelation from God concerning doctrines we don't fully have answers to? So why is it, do you suppose, the Guardians of the Church won't allow any of those women to even pose the question to them? Why would anyone in authority so much as hint about excommunicating a member of the church for following proper Church protocol?

Beats me. Some people are saying Dallin Oaks put this controversy to bed in his address last conference. But what he failed to do in that talk was quote the will of the Lord on the topic. You want to talk about membership in The Not Even Once Club, try getting a General Authority to mention the will of God on the hard doctrinal questions. You won't hear them do it.  Not...Even...Once.

But the GAs will quote each other in circles until Sunday's closing session, you can count on that.

Gim Isom O' Dat
To many of those who knew the truth of what the Ordain Women group actually stood for, listening to Ally Isom misrepresent their motives and intent was extremely frustrating. But not to me. I found Sister Isom's pas de deux to be highly entertaining. She's been working in Church Public Relations for only six months, and her former position as spin doctor for a politician didn't come close to preparing her to be adept at what Brigham Young and his contemporaries used to call "lying for the Lord." She did pretty good, though. But she also said too much if her intent was to protect the corporate brand from additional criticism. And among her collection of inadvertent fluffs were statements that will  provide me with a bulletproof defense if The Boys Downtown do decide to move ahead with their plan to take me out.

I've enjoyed listening to Ally's interview four times already, and it gets better each time.

Ally Isom, Defender of Truth

Who needs Comedy Central when you have Ally Isom on your portable device? For that matter, what do we need with a prophet of God when we can heed the words of someone whose name appears on the corporate flow chart in the box right under "Marketing Dept."?

Which brings us back to that question: where the heck was the prophet while this controversy has been brewing? Why has he pushed a bunch of PR hacks up front as a buffer to protect him from having to do his job?

I like what Paul Toscano had to say about Sister Ally:

"When Ally Isom repeatedly stated; 'I am not able to speculate,' or 'I am not able to answer that question' I would like to have asked her: 'Why are you here answering questions you can't answer? Why isn't one of the apostles here who can? St. Paul faced Festus; he faced his accusers in Rome. Jesus remonstrated directly with the Pharisees and Sadducees. He did not send PR people. Why are the apostles not responsive? Why do top church leaders take the benefits of their offices and avoid the burdens?'

"When Ally Isom refused to take questions from listeners, I would like to have asked her: 'What makes you and your leaders better than Jesus, who answered the questions of his critics directly?'

"Ally Isom is a token woman put forward by leaders to give them plausible deniability. She is a tool of propaganda. I hope she finds another job, soon. This one is likely to eventually destroy her."

I dunno. I'm kind of rooting for Ally. I know the scriptures say the liar shall be thrust into hell, but I hope the devil goes easy on her. Sure, she lies; there's not much question about that. But she's so doggone cute when she does it.

The Packer Defense
Speaking of Paul Toscano, old timers may recall that when the first round of purges took place twenty years ago, Paul Toscano was chief among those on the chopping block. Known collectively as "The September Six," it was later revealed that none other than apostle Boyd K. Packer had been behind the excommunications of near every one of them, acting in direct violation of Church law. Packer had been best buds with Toscano's stake president Kerry Heinz back in their Church Institute days, and had no trouble getting Heinz to pull the switch on Toscano without even a pretense of probable cause.

In the case of Mormon Hebrew Scholar Avraham Gileadi, Packer actually got Gileadi's non-compliant stake president released, then put in a replacement who would be more malleable to Packer's wishes. Packer should have been demoted from the Quorum of the Twelve for this series of calumnies and then excommunicated himself, but instead he wound up with a cushy gig as acting head of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Any bishop or stake president who finds himself enticed to commit what amounts to ecclesiastical perjury would do well to remember the Packer debacle and tell that area authority to take a hike. Because you will be found out. As those in the top echelon of the Church continue to enlist their myrmidons to deny executive involvement in this fiasco, good people like my bishop may find themselves abandoned on the field. It is a serious thing for the Brethren to be caught trying to influence local affairs, because they have absolutely no jurisdiction there. Those who have put their foot in it so far will continue to vehemently deny having done so in order to save face.

Here's an excerpt from a fascinating new book regarding a warning Joseph Smith gave to the Twelve:

"The Twelve will have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof where there is a standing High Council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the church."(William Shepard and H. Michael Marquardt, Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism's Original Quorum of the Twelve, pg 85-86)

The repeated denials from Church PR that no one in the hierarchy has had anything to do with this current string of actions is palpably, laughably false on its face, and pretty much everyone knows it. Just today Denver Snuffer published a detailed account of the constant interference that took place in his case and how his stake president complained about the frequent "pressure from apostles" to hold a disciplinary court on him.  Blogger Will Carter is just trying to get a straight answer as to what he did that warranted his excommunication, because his own bishop will not tell him. Brent Larsen is even now preparing a transcript that reveals high level interference in his case (I will post an update to the link once it's up).

And then there's John Dehlin.

Stay LDS...Hold On There John, We Didn't Mean You!
Going after John Dehlin was the dumbest mistake the Magisterium has made since pouring billions in Church funds to build a shopping center. John has made it his life's work helping people stay in the church who might have otherwise thrown up their hands in frustration and left.

I have personally received hundreds of communications from believing members thanking me for helping reconcile their problems with the faith. John Dehlin has helped thousands. Likely tens of thousands.  He is the co-founder of the website StayLDS.com, which should tell you something about where he has been coming from, and he is the guy behind Mormon Stories Podcasts and its faith-promoting offshoot A Thoughtful Faith Podcasts. I won't spend much more time talking about his accomplishments, but check out those sites and decide for yourself if John Dehlin is a valuable asset to this church.  Then ask yourself, "why would anyone want to excommunicate this guy, of all people?"

Answer that, and you may have discovered the key to what's gone wrong with the institutional LDS Church today.

What's Going On Here, Anyway?
What's going on here is a mutiny of sorts, and it's taking place in the top echelons of the Church, not down here at the bottom among us alleged "apostates." It's worth noting that the September Six excommunications occurred at a time when the president of the church, Ezra Taft Benson, was incapacitated; he was all but brain dead. Whatever Benson was doing in that hospital bed, he was not running the Church from it.

The acting First Presidency lied publicly about the seriousness of Benson's condition, assuring members as well as the press that he

If you got a mission call signed by the prophet in 1993, surprise! No you didn't.

was fully in control, while not permitting anyone but family to see him. They forged his signature several times a day using a device called an Autopen, perfectly legal for corporate officers, but disturbing to those who thought this thing they were members of was an actual church with a living prophet at its head.

Today we are hearing reports of President Monson experiencing increasingly frequent bouts of dementia. He is still himself most of the time, but it would be an easy thing for those with agendas to operate outside his purview, and justify their actions under the belief they are acting for the good of the Church. That's what some of us think is the reason we're suddenly seeing this absolutely insane targeting of devout believers going on all at once. We have resolved to follow Christ, and Him alone.  That makes us a threat to the status quo, which demands obedience to Church authority over all else.

It's a popular myth that the Twelve Apostles are unified. As documented in Lost Apostles, there has always been infighting, jealousies, corporate climbing, and backstabbing in the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Jesus had to put up with it in his day, and so did Brother Joseph in his.  The Twelve have historically been about as unified as a bag of cats. But the image of unity is conveyed to the members in order to protect the image that "the Church is true." 

This recent scandal has blown up big. After word started getting around about John and Kate, I was contacted by reporters from  Reuters, Buzzfeed, the Salt Lake Tribune, KUTV, and the New York Times .  (Check out that groovy photo of me in the Times!) They all wanted to get my take on what was at stake, and to relate what I knew about other devoted members who had been similarly harassed.

As a result of this avalanche of publicity, my readership, which usually hovers at around 50,000 readers a month, has skyrocketed to well over 121,000 in less than a week. So much for silencing my voice, huh?

But I'll tell you what's at stake. There's going to be a lot of fallout resulting from this needless debacle. And absolutely none of it is going to benefit the church.

Already countless members on the fence have declared this nonsense to be the last straw for them, and they're throwing in the towel. I've come to know a number of these people; two former bishops, several bishopric members, Relief Society presidents, counselors, ward clerks, stake High Council members, one former stake president, a stake patriarch, you name it -all of them believers in the gospel of the Restoration, and all of them have had their fill of the shenanigans the structural Church has been up to in recent years. This final malfeasance has done them in. They embrace the gospel, but they tell me this is it; they're done supporting the corporate Church.

And those are the devout believers. A whole lot more members who are not so devoted, but whose testimonies of the gospel have been shaken by the Magisterium's transparent hypocrisy, have weighed in online declaring their intentions to resign. These people number in the tens of thousands.

Let's not even talk about the public relations disaster all this is becoming for the Church. If you have a son or daughter on a mission stateside, don't ask them about how many baptisms they're getting. It will only depress them further.

Excommunication: A Divine Law 
Some who are regular readers to this blog may be surprised to learn I favor excommunication. I do. It is a divine law, and necessary if the church is to maintain its purity.  But the law of excommunication only holds in specific types of cases. It cannot be abused, and it can never be used vindictively to cleanse the church of those who promote the cause of Christ. God will not recognize an excommunication conducted for the wrong reasons.

As pointed out in the excellent analysis The Doctrine Against Dissent, there exist legitimate and necessary reasons for excommunicating a member. One primary reason is dissent. But the word "dissent" in Joseph Smith's day did not mean a mere difference of opinion the way we think of it today. The word appears nine times in the Book of Mormon, and it always refers to someone who viciously turns his back on Christ and His gospel, and is actively fighting against God.

I've got a surprise for you; we don't have to excommunicate many of those people; they're already gone. Unbelievers don't tend to hang around in a religion based upon faith and belief.  They've left on their own accord because...well, mainly because they don't want to be here.

Disciplinary abuse occurs in two ways. First is when church leaders decide to use the process to punish people like me who believe in the core fundamentals of the faith but have found no scriptural imperative to pledge our allegiance to the leaders.  In case you are new to this site and know nothing about me, I openly embrace the Book of Mormon, accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and believe in the Restored gospel of Christ.  If  you're wondering where I'm coming from doctrinally, I would suggest two posts that encapsulate my views, "Who You Callin' Apostate?" and "My Testimony of the Church."

There is no conceivable justification for kicking a believer out of the church of Christ unless he has committed an egregious sin, or the person advocating his removal has motives that are less than pure.

The second way abuse occurs is in not following the rules laid out by God by which a person is properly removed. This abuse occurs almost every time in the modern Church, because the scriptural procedure is almost never followed. It has been usurped by conflicting rules published in the Church Handbook of Instruction. Elevating the CHI over scripture is a violation of the law, part of which reads,  "Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct." (D&C 20:80) 

See? Nothing in there about going by the corporate handbook.

What the scriptures direct in a case where there is actual apostasy is that the accusation be made by a member of the local ward or branch; it is not permitted that a bishop or stake president initiate it.  If a fellow Saint has no accuser there can be no disciplinary action against the person. According to scripture, the bishop's job in the proceeding is to affirm that the accuser is a member in good standing, and not some enemy of the church. That's the only reason for the bishop to be present.

When two or more accusers come forward to testify against a transgressor, they are to testify before the Council of Elders. Things are never done this way anymore, even though our doctrine requires it. That's because the Council of Elders no longer exists; it has been replaced by the Stake High Council, which was originally intended to settle different types of matters; never apostasy.

After the Elder's Court tries the accused, if the accused person is condemned, there is still one more important step. The proposal for the person's excommunication is presented to the entire congregation for a vote. This is necessary because though the accusing witnesses may have a motive, the members of the congregation may believe the person innocent of apostasy, and the conviction will be nullified.

Nowadays excommunication proceedings are kept very confidential, and this is a good thing in cases where sexual impropriety is the charge. In these cases an announcement is made in the general ward priesthood meeting that so-and-so has been excommunicated, and that is that.

But in a case of open apostasy, confidentiality would not be protected. And it should not be, as apostasy is a public offense. According to D&C 42 90-91, "if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed."  The reason a conviction for apostasy is a matter for the entire congregation to decide is because it's not likely the ward members would be unaware there is an apostate in their midst. Conversely, ward members would likely be well enough acquainted with the accused that they would vote against conviction if they believed the accusation to be false.

The sections of the Doctrine & Covenants that contain the complete instructions regarding excommunication are sections 42, 102, and 107. (For a thorough analysis of this topic see The Doctrine Against Dissent.)

But rather than linger any longer on the law of excommunication, let's take a look at what our favorite Church spokeslady, Ally Isom, had to say about the charges being leveled against John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, and myself.  The charge is apostasy, and lucky for us, Sister Isom was all too willing to define apostasy for us in that interview on KUER. Here is what Sister Isom had to say:

"We define it as when our members turn away from the principles of the gospel, or corrupt principles of the gospel, or make unauthorized changes in Church organizations or priesthood ordinances. It's one thing to make one's views known; it's quite another to actively draw others away from clear doctrine. And it causes concern because ultimately other's lives can be dramatically influenced.

Well, I have no argument with that, and I daresay neither do John or Kate. None of us have any desire to change any doctrines. Certainly I don't. This blog is all about encouraging both members and leaders to adhere to the doctrines we have already been given through revelation, and eschew the frequent tendency some have to elevate policies created by men to the level of doctrine.

Only God can establish the doctrines of this church. Those doctrines come to us either from the Book of Mormon or through direct revelations written down and accepted as were those received by Joseph Smith.  We also accept certain teachings of Joseph Smith as being doctrinal.

It is not enough to consider an inspired statement by one of the Brethren to be doctrinal; it is only doctrinal when revealed through revelation.  Recall that the only thing Kate Kelly is asking for is that the prophet take the matter before the Lord and get an answer through revelation.  Who knows? Maybe the Lord will respond by saying he wants things to stay as they are. Then fine. At least the question will have been asked and answered. I don't know about you, but I'd kind of like to get clarification on a few things. For instance, although we know that sisters in the early days gave healing blessings to one another, can a woman give a blessing to a man? Can a woman anoint and bless her own husband? I'd kinda like the Lord's view on that.

Ally continues:

"I think President Hinckley probably said it best. He said that he's spoken before about the importance of keeping Church doctrine pure and seeing that it's taught in all the meetings. And he conveyed that he worried about this; this is something that weighs on his mind as a steward of the doctrine and as the prophet of the Church. And he said 'small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods.' So it's something to which we want to be sensitive, that the doctrine, pure and clear and undefiled, is the essence of the gospel. And it is the responsibility of our leaders to insure it is kept in alignment with the father's will."

Who's going to argue with that? Don't those words encapsulate the very spirit of what I am attempting to do on virtually ever page of this blog? Hinckley was right: it is small aberrations in doctrinal teaching that have led to large and very evil falsehoods in this church; falsehoods that continue to be embraced by the majority no matter how often we are taught to beware of false teachings.

"Elder Oaks was clear in last April's general conference when he stated categorically that the leaders of the Church don't have the authority to change things. "

Isn't that what I've been saying? You can pull up pretty much any one of my blog posts, and you'll find me saying essentially the same thing: "the leaders of the Church don't have the authority to change things." Only God does, and he makes those changes known only through revelation.

And yet these very leaders continue to change the doctrines of God without exhibiting any irony, and without consulting with God about it at all. They also seem to take pleasure in making new doctrines up. Here's an example I presented last month of Dallin Oaks himself making up a new doctrine he expects you and me to obey:


You would think Elder Oaks, of all people, should be able to recognize a falsehood when he speaks it. He is, after all, a lawyer.

These are sorry times to be a Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the institution, the structural organization, has lost its integrity.  Whichever rogue apostles are behind this current purge, the other ten or eleven, having rushed to rally in a show of unity, have exposed the hypocrisy of the institution to the entire world. Don't believe me? Then you're not following the news.

When Salt Lake City television station KUTV Channel 2 set out to investigate the Church's Strengthening The Members Committee, reporter Brian Mullahy couldn't find a Church leader willing to talk about the mysterious committee on the record. "likely not the favorite subject of LDS Church officials," Mullahy reported, "this committee's role, it would seem, is to collect and then share information about perceived trouble from within the church.

Originally discovered operating within the Church Office Building in the 1980s, the STMC was rumored to have been disbanded after embarrassing comparisons to the East German spy agency STASI. But now apparently the committee has been revived and is back in service, this time headed by apostle Russell Nelson. By threatening to excommunicate some of its most faithful members, the LDS Church has managed to notify the world that we have our own Mormon Secret Police. Smooth move, guys.

"The Mormon Moment Is Finally (Really) Over" blared the headline on Buzzfeed, trumpeting the end of the public's short lived feel-good fascination with Mormonism, the one-time fortunate confluence of "a string of public relations coups, rosy profiles, and rising interest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." All that's over now, as the boneheads at Church headquarters have managed to slingshot the public image of Mormonism right back to a 19th century caricature.

(Joanna Brooks, author of the bestseller Book of Mormon Girl took a different angle, affirming that this may be thereal Mormon Moment because these scandals are forcing us to take a good hard look at what our Church is turning into.)

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Wolf?
Quite frequently this past week, as online friends have learned about my pending discipline, they have expressed condolences for the distress they feel I must be going through. But why?  This isn't a problem for me, this is a problem for my persecutors. If this pending excommunication were legitimate, it would be akin to spiritual death. That's what excommunication represents; being cut off from the church and being cut off from God. If this was real I would be fearing for my very soul.

But these earthly usurpers don't have the power to do that. Christ himself defines His church as "all who repent and come unto me" and I have it on good authority that my membership in His church remains in good standing.

Sure, they can boot me out of the corporate Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that "Church", the one reorganized by Heber J. Grant in November of 1923, is an organization I never belonged to anyway.

If it comes to a disciplinary court held on me, good. I look forward to any opportunity to bear witness of Christ, so a court of love would be a great opportunity to offer hugs and camaraderie to a dozen guys who, like me, are mainly trying their best to be good disciples of Christ. But it would also be an opportunity to remind them that we deserve to get away from this idea that there is a priestly class in Salt Lake City that is above reproach when they do or say things that are disingenuous and harmful to the rest of the community.

In 2 Nephi 26:27 we are charged with persuading all men to repent, and so although I try to do so with love and a bit of jocularity on this blog, sometimes it is necessary to speak with plainness. I confess to showing a bit less patience with those who claim authority over the rest of us than I do for my fellow Saint who is often struggling in the dark as much as I am.

Twenty years ago, at the time Church leadership used excommunication as a heavy club to bully the September Six (all devoted believers),  excommunication carried a terrible stigma. That stigma no longer exists.

But I'm not sure Church leadership realizes that yet. Few members are scared of their big bad threats anymore. They have no power to "unbaptize" anyone (baptism has nothing to do with membership in this particular denomination); and the victims of these inquisitions no longer believe the Magisterium's rejection condemns them to Outer Darkness and the buffetings of Satan. They're not likely to cravenly beg their way back into the leader's good graces as was expected in the past.

Every year fewer and fewer members want anything to do with the institutional LDS church anyway, so being put out on the porch just means they're free to roam the neighborhood without supervision. If voluntarily leaving the Church is liberating for some, excommunication for what they call "apostasy" is even better, because it means the corporate Church's hypocrisy is openly exposed for all to see.

This is what happened when the national press picked up the story of the September Six. Reporters were all over that one. "Didn't the people you just kicked out advocate obedience to Christ?""Well yes, but you see, they refused to bow the knee to us."

Excommunication today is a hollow threat. It merely means you're not part of the club that long ago discarded what made membership in it meaningful, and replaced it with a counterfeit church-like imitation structure filled to overflowing with lawyers, executives, and corporate yes-men.

The faithful latter-day Saint who is devoted to God rather than men knows his membership in the church of Christ remains intact despite the empty pomp of some official drumming-out ceremony. The qualifications for membership in Christ's church, as defined in D&C 10:67 ("all who repent and come unto me, the same IS my church") puts him in a safer place than those who have usurped Christ's authority and demand obeisance unto themselves, which makes the very next verse damningly prophetic ("Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is NOT of my church").

I think I'd rather stay in the church that Jesus is still in charge of, and not worry about whether I'm "good enough" to continue to associate with the boys in the Executive Suite. I'm not as concerned about being in good with those guys as I used to be.







Update:
I was remiss earlier in not crediting my friend Jonathan Streeter for superimposing my face on master Obi-Wan above. Pretty cool, huh?

Update June 22:
There is a petition circulating calling for President Monson to allow more transparency in the Church. Since transparency is required in our doctrine, I think this petition is worth signing and circulating.
Click here.

Update June 23: I was the guest on the Paul Duane Show for two hours today on Salt Lake City's K-Talk Radio AM 630. You can access the recording by clicking here.

Update June 23:
I failed to offer a link to Paul Toscano's account of his excommunication as a member of the September Six, which can be found in his recently published memoir, "Road To Exile." (At only $4.49 for the kindlle edition, I can't think of a great read at a better deal.)  It's also worth noting that Paul was not the original target of these proceedings; it was his wife Margaret. But when Paul (at the time Senior Editor of the Ensign Magazine) refused to comply with Church leader's requests that he, as the priesthood holder in the home should " rein in his wife", it was decided they would go after him because of his high profile.  Margaret appeared in the PBS Two-part special on The Mormons, the full interview which is available here. Margaret was finally ex'd some years later, so she is considered an important asterisk to any discussion of the September Six, because had they dealt with her that September, we would be talking about the September Seven.

Update June 24: In my mention of Brent Larsen, I promised to post the transcript of his meeting with an Area Seventy regarding his appeal from his excommunication. That transcript is now available here on the LDS Freedom Forum.

Update June 25: The interview I did the other day on Mormon Expositor is available now.   Click here.


Important Note About Commenting: Again, I must remind my readers that all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted as fast as I come across them. I hate doing it, so please abide by this rule and spare me the angst.

I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifier so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others who tend to post as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not.

Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous. When you post using that method, I don't have the ability to track who you are (not that I would want to) and neither does anyone else. So it makes sense to use that feature if you wish to keep your true identity hidden. All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part. Of course, if you want to further mislead others, you can put any link in the URL box you choose, such as Youtube.com, Amazon.com, or LDS.org

Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one. But seriously, enough with all these people calling themselves "Anonymous." It's getting to be too much.

That having been said, please join the conversation below.

Previously: Who Is Changing The Doctrine?

I have two big announcements to make before this month is over (Well, big for me, anyway.)  The first is that my book is finished and now available at Amazon, and the good news is it's incredibly cheap.

Did I say "cheap"?  I mean "my book is inexpensive." It lists for Fifteen bucks, but Amazon has it currently discounted. So my loss is your gain. I'd get it now if I were you before the price goes up.

I designed this book partly with your mother-in-law in mind.  If you have friends and loved ones who don't 'get' you, who are convinced that you can't be a faithful member of this church without displaying the requisite deference to modern Church leaders, this book may help those close to you come to understand that Jesus Christ does not require anything like that from members of His church.

At only 160 pages, it's a comparatively easy read (compared to my usual logorrheic postings on this blog). It will be available any day now on Kindle, and if you buy the hardcopy now, you can get the kindle version later for only $2.99 What a deal! So what are you waiting for? Operators are standing by!  Click Here to find this remarkable treasure:

"What To Expect When You're Excommunicated"

Second Big Announcement
Through a series of miraculous occurrences, Connie and I, who normally abide in far off Sacramento, California, have suddenly found ourselves in Utah. We are the grateful recipients of the hospitality of strangers who looked at me and said, "Say, weren't you that groovy looking guy whose photo was in the New York Times?  Please stay with us and partake of our vittles."

So here we are, and I've been invited to participate in the Sunstone Symposium on Saturday August 2nd on the panel discussing "Moderating Mormons in Cyberspace." That panel will convene at 11:00 am Saturday, but I'll be present at the symposium for all three days beginning Thursday, July 31st, so please come up and say hi to me.

I've come to know so many of you online, and I wish there were an opportunity to meet with at least some of you face to face, but alas, because of time constraints and other obligations, pretty much the only chance it looks like I'll have to meet my friends will be at the Symposium that weekend, so if you can't make the entire weekend, I hope you'll at least come for Saturday.  After the program concludes that evening, there will be an informal After-Party Saturday night from 7-11 pm.  The address is 1444 Yale Ave, which is 1050 South in Salt Lake City. Bring along snacks or drinks to share, and let's get acquainted.

Denver Snuffer will be presenting on Saturday at 2:00, and I'm looking forward to meeting him for the first time there, as well as other luminaries I've admired from afar. So being at the Sunstone Symposium is a dream come true for me, as I've always wanted to attend and never had the opportunity, living as we do so far away. And now I'm going to be an actual participant!  Pretty cool.  Pre-registration has been extended until Sunday, July 27th, so if you hurry you can save some money by registering in advance. Here's the registration information:

Sunstone Symposium Registration

And here's a copy of the program:

Sunstone Symposium Program

I wish I could tell you I'll have some of my books with me, but alas, it will take too long to get them shipped here. The Symposium will be over before they even arrive.  The only way I had of getting a copy of my own was to buy one through Amazon Prime last night so I'd have it here in two days.  So I had to pay almost full price for my own book. But at least I'll have one to show.

The book just went on sale yesterday, and this morning I pulled up my account at Createspace, Amazon's printing arm, just to make sure everything was in order, and I saw that I had made my first sale! I can't tell you the feeling of seeing that someone had purchased the first ever copy of my book! I wondered who it was?

After a few minutes, though, I realized it was me. That was the record of the book I had just bought for myself last night.  So my enthusiasm was short-lived. On the other hand, I just earned myself a couple bucks royalty, so maybe I should buy a few more.

Okay, Here's A Third Big Announcement
My new friend Bill Shepard, co-author with Michael Marquardt of the book "Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism's Original Quorum of the Twelve" will be holding a book signing with Mike at Ken Saunders Books, 268 S 200 E in Salt Lake City at 6 Pm this Tuesday.  801-521-3819 is the phone number at the store.  Believe me when I tell you that you need this book! I quoted from it in my own book,and Andrew Hamilton, in his review for the Association of Mormon Letters, calls it "one of the most important works of historical biography in the Joseph Smith Restorationist movement from the last 10 years." I agree, though I'd make that an even dozen years. So if you can, come and meet both the authors (they're also presenting at Sunstone); and I hear Todd Compton and Michael Quinn may both be there also, so I'm going.

Some Further Announcements
Last month after I had already posted my last blog entry, I was interviewed by Paul Duane at K-Talk Radio in Salt Lake City, and also by Heather Clarkson of Mormon Expositor. If you're one of those people who never seems to get enough of hearing me talk (Hi, Mom!), you can access those interviews below.


K-Talk Interview with Paul Duane
The actual interview isn't easy to find on the page. Scroll down to where you see the band that reads "Play in New Window" or "Download."

Mormon Expositor Interview with Heather Clarkson
In this interview Heather delves into my past to get to the real, secret Rock Waterman lurking inside. You'll be astonished! (No you won't.)

And finally, Rob Nielsen has come up with this parody of the famous scene from "A Few Good Men" in response to the current string of purges within the Church:

"You Can't Handle The Truth!"

So, in conclusion, don't forget: 1. Come to the Sunstone Symposium, and 2. Buy my book.

Please buy my book. Connie and I are counting on your purchases to provide us the gas money to get back home to Sacramento. Seriously, it's too hot out here in Zion.

Oh! And when you've finished the book, please leave a smashing review on Amazon. That'll help the book get pulled up and recommended when others do a book search using the search term "Mormon." Click here:

"What To Expect When You're Excommunicated"

Update: I forgot to credit my friend Ron Pedersen who insisted on writing the back cover notes. He calls me "cheeky."

Important Note About Posting Comments:
As announced previously, henceforth all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted.
I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifiyer so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others posting as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage  in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not.

Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous. When you post a moniker using that method, I don't have the ability to track who you are (not that I would want to) and neither does anyone else. So it makes sense to use that feature if you wish to keep your true identity hidden. All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part. If you find it necessary to fill in the URL, you can put any link in the URL box you choose, such as Youtube.com, Amazon.com, or even LDS.org

Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one. 

That having been said, please join the conversation below.

(To read the previous chapter, click here. To start this series at the beginning, click here.)

We shall now comment on one of the fascinating chapters in the scriptures, Isaiah 28:

“Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!” (Isa. 28:1)

Before elaborating on this, we must note that even though Isaiah’s prophesies were given to ancient Israel and had meaning for them, most of them also applied to the far future such as the first and second coming of Christ, the Millennium, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

First we must note here that Isaiah is speaking to "the drunkards of Ephraim”. There is no question that the Latter-Day Saints refer to themselves as “Ephraim” and there is no question that the Church teaches that the very next chapter of Isaiah (chapter 29) refers to our day or the coming forth of the Church, and the Book of Mormon. Therefore, it would seem quite logical that Isaiah 28 would also refer to Ephraim of our day.

But wait! It calls Ephraim drunkards and Mormons don’t drink! Therefore, it could not refer to us.

On the contrary, a drunkard in the scriptures does not always refer to one drunk with wine. David explains, “Thou hast showed thy people hard things; thou hast made us to drink the wine of astonishment.” (Psalms 60:3)

Another example: “And I will tread down the people in my anger, and I will make them drunk in my fury....” (Isa. 63:6) “They are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of a deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.” (Isa. 29:9-10)

Thus we see that the “drunkards of Ephraim” refers to a people who stumble because the little doctrine that the Lord did give them was too much for them to handle and they did stumble as a drunken man.

Concerning the words of Isaiah, Nephi said, “The words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy.” (2 Nephi 25:4)

Where is there an authorized prophet or apostle in the Church that can declare that the words of Isaiah are plain unto him? On the contrary, most of them will admit they do not understand them.

Nephi also says, “In the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled, men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass.” (2 Nephi 25:7)

Many of the prophesies referred to here by Nephi are approaching fulfillment and the prophesies of Isaiah are becoming so clear that none will have an excuse to not understand. The same is true of the revelation written by John as Moroni said, “And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of the people. Remember, when ye see these things, we shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed.” (Ether 4:16)

The time is verily approaching when all these scriptures will be unfolded in the eyes of the people, but not through “authorized channels.”

Getting back to Isaiah 28, we see that the drunkards of Ephraim are called the “crown of pride.” Being the crown of pride is referred to by Jesus as the day “when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations and above all the people of the whole earth.” (3 Nephi 16: 10) In other words, out of all the pride the peoples of the earth have, the Latter-Day Saints are the crown of it all.

“...Whose glorious beauty is a fading flower... .” The glorious beauty of the cities in the valleys established by our pioneers is becoming a fading flower. The rivers and the atmosphere is now becoming polluted and the beauty that was there is fading, not only physically, but spiritually. The inhabitants are no longer bright with the spirit of God making prophesies, healing by the Spirit and seeking the mysteries.

Unless they turn from the arm of flesh to the Spirit within, they shall be counted as among the foolish virgins.

“Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.” (Isa. 28:2)

The mighty and strong one ... that rings a bell doesn’t it? We find reference to it in D&C 85:7-8: “And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God; while that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by a vivid shaft of lightening.”

I once heard an LDS lecturer declare: “If the authorities knew how many problems this scripture was going to cause them, they would have never let it in the Doctrine and Covenants.” This may be true and the present day authorities would love to rip this section out of the book, but since it would bring criticism from the people, they decided to ignore it instead. Even if it were taken out of the D&C (which may possibly happen in the future), it would still be in Isaiah, and all the Bibles in the world cannot be changed.

The Doctrine and Covenants tells us that the one mighty and strong will set the house of God in order.

How can it be set in order if it is not first out of order?

The authorities say that this scripture has already been fulfilled, but how can this be when we have not yet received our inheritances in Zion? The authorities also say that circumstances did not warrant a complete fulfillment here, but the scripture says a few verses later, “These things I say not of myself; therefore, as the Lord speaketh, He WILL also fulfill. (D&C 85:10)

Not only will this individual set in order the house of God, but his word will cause much turbulence “as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing.” At his presence the power of God will cause much destruction to bring the people to repentance.

He shall “Cast down to the earth with the hand.” What shall be cast down? He shall cast down the crown of pride, or the authorities in the Church.

How will he do this?

There are a number of ways this could happen. Some avant guard LDS students think he will forcibly remove the authorities (by higher power) and install himself and others as the new leaders of the church. Anything is possible, but a more likely scenario is that his works and teachings through the Spirit will be of such high order that many will look up to him and down on the teachings of authorities. This is what happened in the situation of Jesus and some of the prophets. The teachings of the religious leaders were “cast down” because of the light or “ensign” which was lifted up.

And where will they be cast down to? The scripture says “the earth.” What does this mean?
Their original teachings were a revelation from heaven, but because revelation has ceased, the consciousness of the authorities is cast down to the earth, or earthly things – not heavenly things.
“The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under foot.” (Isa. 28:3)

The explanation of this is found in a verse previously explained: “But if the salt shall loose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under the foot of men.” (3 Nephi 12:13)

“And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up. In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, and for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.” (Isa. 28:4)

It is interesting that the Mormons who claim to be from Ephriam have their headquarters in a "fat valley." But the meaning goes beyond this. Many unjust teachers and leaders there are who live in abundance off the people (symbolized by fat valleys). The fat valley also symbolizes the abundance of light that should be theirs, given to them by the sacrifice of past prophets and seers. Unfortunately, all these past teachings have become a "fading flower" through neglect by those who are looked upon as the stewards of light by humanity.

The next phrase continues the story:

"And as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up."

"Hasty fruit" comes from the Hebrew BIKKUWR which literally means "first fruits." The first fruits are considered as the most precious of the harvest - this is one of the reasons that Jesus himself was called this.

Who are these first fruits? They are the original bringers of light in a religion, group or country. For Christianity these would be Jesus and the apostles and prophets. For the protestant Churches this would include Martin Luther and the reformers. For Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other founders would be included. For the United States the firstfruits would be the Founding Fathers.

The first fruits usually go through great sacrifice to initiate a new work that will benefit humanity and often garner very little personal benefit from their work in their own lifetime. However, the later stewards who are entrusted to carry on, enhance, and teach the work often live lives of plenty with great adoration from the masses. These teachers who get rich in the fat valleys are threatened when they see they are a fading flower so they seek to devour the first fruits.

How do they do this?

The unjust stewards seek to destroy the firstfruits by using several methods.
(1) Altering their teachings
(2) Destroying or hiding their teachings from the people.
(3) Convincing the masses to ignore their teachings.
(4) Minimizing their work by elevating mediocrity so current caretakers will seem to be as great as the founders.

By using these and other subversive methods the "crown of pride" eats up the first fruits and manages to keep its authority over the people while leaving them in darkness.

Isaiah Continues: "In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, and for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate." Isa. 28:5-6)

Even though the majority of the people will be deceived by lazy or false teachers there will be a "residue" who will be a "crown of glory" and a " diadem of beauty." These are they who refuse to be taken in by traditional teachings which are missing the light of the first fruit. These think for themselves and go within and find the beauty of the Spirit of God. These are they who will turn the tide of the spiritual battle and eventually pave the way for the new age of peace and enlightenment.

Isaiah continues: “But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.” (verse 7) This is written as clear as word can be and needs no explanation.

“For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.” (Verse 8) We talked earlier about problems with the current sacrament, but this scripture has meaning on other levels also.
The basic message is that instead of giving their people food which feeds the soul the current teachers feed their flocks with decaying food that has no life - old worn out teachings that need to be discarded or restored and replaced with fresh and living food and drink.

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will be speak to this people.” (verses 9-11)

There has been much written, especially by the Fundamentalists, about the stammering lips and another tongue. Most believe that it refers to an Indian prophet who will preach to the Latter-Day Saints. Even though there will be Indian prophets, this does not necessarily refer to him. The English word “stammering” is translated from the Hebrew "laeg." When one speaks stammering or laeg, he speaks in a sort of repeating baby talk to jokingly irritate his listeners. Joseph Smith sometimes did this to stir up the sectarians and Isaiah himself is using this sort of talk with the Jews when he repeats himself unnecessarily in verse 10. When he speaks of “another tongue”, we must remember that our tongue today is a different one than that used by the Jews.

Then, too, looking at it from a different angle, many of the Lamanites will eventually teach the children of Ephraim who will listen, but many of them will speak English. The scripture mainly indicates that Ephraim will become as a little child again and must be taught with a stammering lip, or repetitive language before they can learn doctrine.

A higher interpretation of what the other tongue is refers to a new way of speaking and teaching to Israelites. Jesus spoke with a different tongue, or manner of speaking, than Moses, and God will speak in new and different ways as the times change in this age. The teachers of the various ages and climes teach so differently (even though it is all one message) that it seems to be "another tongue."

"To whom he said, This is my rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." (Verse 12)

Here Isaiah identifies the people in the prophecy as those who were promised the rest of the Lord. This promise was made through Moses to the Hebrews that Isaiah was talking to and also through Joseph Smith to the Latter-day Saints in our day. We must bear in mind that even though most of Isaiah deals with the future, he had to write it in such a way so it had meaning to the people in his day.

Concerning the people in the days of Moses, the Lord said, "But they hardened their hearts and could not endure His presence; therefore, the Lord in His wrath, for His anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into His rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fullness of His glory." (D&C 84:24)

Were the Latter-Day Saints given a similar promise? They were:

"Verily, this is the word of the Lord, that the city of New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord which shall fill the house." (D&C 84:4-5)

Just as ancient Israel was unable to obtain the promise of the rest of the Lord, so did modern Israel fail to achieve its rest by establishing the temple and New Jerusalem in Jackson County. The Mormons are one of the groups prophesied of by Isaiah of whom the Lord promised a rest and a refreshing "yet they would not hear."

"But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." (Verse 13)

Here Isaiah again used his "stammering" language for he again uses his repetitive speech. He clearly illustrates how the word of the Lord has been to the resisting religions. He says it is, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept;" the repetition or stammering indicates the manner of presentation of the gospel to the Mormon people (and other religions). That is, the few precepts they have been given are given to them again and again in simple language a child can understand. At nearly every conference, the general authorities say the same things over and over, and the Sunday School manuals teach the same simple lessons over and over. Because they "would not hear," this is the backward manner that the word of the Lord would come to them.

Why is this? So that they "might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

"Taken" is from the Hebrew LAKAD which signifies being "caught in a trap." The Lord is allowing the Church to follow the backward course it is taking so it will be caught in a trap, and when its bands are made strong the real truth through wise virgins will come forth to reveal the bondage to those who thought they were free. There must be great contrast between light and darkness or the light will not be seen or sought.

Verily the time is at hand when that contrast between the light and the dark, the shadows and the real, the ego and the soul will be seen by those who wait and the choice will be clear. Let us hope that all people of goodwill choose the highest light they see before their eyes.

"Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem". (Today it is Salt Lake and other religious centers) 

"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." (verses 14-15)

So what is the covenant with death and agreement with hell?

In ancient times Israel made covenants with the Living God and in return they were promised protection from all their enemies as well as peace and prosperity. A covenant with death would be the opposite of this. Instead of making covenants with a living God the spiritual guides of the people make covenants with groups, organizations and governments with a priority above their commitment to God and the people they serve. Any commitment that is not sought through the Spirit is a covenant with death.

An agreement with hell is the opposite of an agreement that brings peace and benefit to all. An agreement with hell is one that takes the group's attention away from freedom, from attention of spiritual progress and causes the organization to center on lower desires and looking good in the eyes of the world at the expense of nurturing the soul in its members.

"And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fullness of my gospel; but they receive it not (that is, the "fullness"); for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men. And in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be men standing in that generation that shall not pass away until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land. But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved; but among the wicked, men shall lift up their voices and curse God and die." (D&C 45:28-32)

Concerning this "overflowing scourge" Isaiah said that the leaders would believe that "it shall not come unto us," but they forget that the Lord said that "upon my house shall it begin." (D&C 112:25)

Mormons are told that the members will be protected by standing in "holy places" and the leaders today say that this means we should make frequent trips to the temple, for the temples are holy places. While it is true that the temples are supposed to be holy places, they are not the ones referred to in this prophecy for they are in no way large enough to provide protection against desolation. A few verses later in that same section, we are told that the holy place is Zion, "a city of refuge, a place of safety for the Saints of the Most High God." (D&C 45:66) We are told that "the wicked will not come unto it." (v.67)

So it certainly cannot be Salt Lake. The holy places or the cities of light are yet to be set up and the great day is waiting at our doors.

We are further told that, "The Lord's scourge shall pass over by night and by day, and the report thereof shall vex all people; yea, it shall not be stayed until the Lord come." (D&C 97:23) Also, the Lord tells us to keep His commandments, otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay." (D&C 84:58-59)

In spite of all this evidence, the authorities say, "it shall not come unto us" for we stand in holy places, and the Lord is with us for behold we are growing and prospering as never before.

"We have made lies our refuge and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." The "lies" refer to various false doctrines now espoused and the "falsehood" refers to the distortions of Church history and the cover-up of many important facts.

"Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: He that believeth shall not make haste." (Verse 16)
The tried stone is Christ as is evidenced: "I am the good shepherd and the stone of Israel. He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall." (D&C 50:44) In addition to this, the stone is also those who have been tried and found faithful and have the spirit of Christ in their hearts to the extent that they can speak the words of Christ.

"He that believeth shall not make haste." One who is really capable of accepting the Christ, who is the tried stone, will not do so in haste. He will not be converted on the spur of the moment or be saved in a day as with the case of many religious claims. He will be the type of person who will study the teachings out and eventually follow with a true realization of the difficulties involved. He will realize the wisdom in the words of Christ: "Which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it. Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him." (Luke 14:28-29) Even so, let him who believes in the setting in order count the cost before he decides to serve else his strength give out.

On the other hand, those in illusion are not to make haste in rejecting the revelations of God for behold, many will read a few paragraphs of anything new and reject the whole. Does not the scripture say, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13)

"Judgment also will I lay to the line and righteousness to the plummet: and hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place." (Verse 17)

This refers to two calamities brought by the one Mighty and Strong mentioned in verse 2 - that is hail and flooding. If the religious authorities resist strongly enough a fairly literal fulfillment will happen on the physical plane. If they practice what they preach and show minimal love, tolerance and understanding then these calamities will happen on a higher level.
Instead of literal hail it will be hard truth that cannot be withstood. Instead of literal flooding of water it will be overwhelming evidence of new truths which will sweep the land.

"And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." (Verse 18)

The calamities will cause the present authorities to lose their power and influence, for "in the days that the prophesies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled, men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass." (2 Nephi 25:7)

The spiritual authorities again have a choice for how this prophecy will be fulfilled. Instead of a physical overflowing scourge it could be an emotional one. The emotions and feelings of authorities will be disturbed through the new light and teachings and reach a point of tension. When this point is reached they will definitely go down kicking and screaming on the emotional plane, but if they leave their response on that plane and seek to do no harm, then this prophesy does not have to be fulfilled on the physical.

If reasonable restraint and harmlessness on a physical level is maintained by authorities then the overflowing scourge from God will be one which plagues their belief system and the errors thereof will be "trodden down" by the light.

"From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report." (Verse 19)

If resistance to truth is strong enough the scourge will not only be calamities, but it shall also be a "desolating sickness" (D&C 45:31) It shall be "poured out from time to time, if they repent not, until the earth is empty." (D&C 5:19)

If those who resist the light do not seek to do damage to disciples on the physical plane then the fulfillment will merely be a desolating sickness of outworn organizations and belief systems until the earth is empty of illusion and error and "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." Isaiah 11:9

"It shall be a vexation only to understand the report."

If authorities remain physically harmless then the vexation will be teachings which will stir their souls rather than a physical plague which will wake them up to the fact that the powers of God are against them as they are against the truths of the soul. As a last resort physical calamities will come to vex the authorities to understand the report just as the plagues of Moses came against he Pharaoh.

"Report" is from the Hebrew SHEMUWAH which implies "an announcement which is fairly startling to people". It is also translated as news, tidings or doctrine. The report shall be teachings setting the tone for the new age which shall give the people light to put an end to the famine for greater knowledge. The greater knowledge which is becoming manifest by thousands of workers of light in varying degrees will create an unstoppable tide for the setting in order of the house of God; and because the established teachers will not listen, the Lord will cause a vexation to get their attention. These leaders may not all accept higher light by a long way, but the Master will certainly have their attention.

"For the bed is shorter than a man can stretch himself on it: the covering narrower than he can wrap himself in it." (Verse 20)

The "bed" refers to the foundations of the church and kingdom as presently constituted. They are not enough to fully satisfy the earnest seeker; therefore, he cannot "stretch himself on it." The "covering" refers to the teachings available. The fullness of revelation is no longer with the church; therefore, the covering is narrower than that a member "can wrap himself in it."

Visualize yourself going to bed in a cold room to take a rest. Your bed is so short that your feet hang over the edge. The covers are so short that they only cover half your body. Would this not be an uncomfortable situation you would want to rectify at the first possible moment?

Yet the foundation teachings, the good, the beautiful and the true, of most religions have been in large part shorted or removed, making the bed of religion too short and a very uncomfortable resting place. Foundation teachings and new revelation have been suppressed so members do not have sufficient light as a covering and shiver inside stone buildings lacking warmth.

"For the Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act." (Verse 21)

Before we can comprehend this scripture, we must understand what it is the Lord did in Perazim and Gibeon.

The story is in the Old Testament: right after David was anointed king over Israel, the Philistines came seeking his life, and David inquired of the Lord as to what to do and was told to go against the Philistines and the Lord would deliver them into his hand.

"And David came to Baal Perazim, and David smote them there, and said, The Lord hath broken forth mine enemies as the breach of the waters. Therefore, he called the name of the place Baalperazim. And there they left their images and David and his men burned them." (2 Sam. 5:19-21)

It is important here that we comprehend the full meaning conveyed. Baalperazim comes from the Hebrew word that literally means "master of breaking forth." The name was given in honor of David for he is the one who led the battle. The thought conveyed by the word is the breaking down of a barrier or enemy as the flooding waters will burst a dam. David and his men were compared to the waters and the Philistines were compared to the dam that was broken by the power of God.

The very next verses relate an incident in Gibeon which is translated "Geba" in the King James edition:

"And the Philistines came up yet again, and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim. And when David inquired of the Lord, he said, Thou shalt not go up; but fetch a compass behind them, and come upon them over against the mulberry trees. And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself: For then shall the Lord go out before thee, to smite the host of the Philistines. And David did so, as the Lord had commanded him; and smote the Philistines from Geba (Gibeon) until thou come to Gazer." (2 Sam. 5:22-25)

Here David was told to "fetch a compass behind them" or in the Hebrew to surround them from behind and to wait for "the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees." This sound that David was to wait for was the sound of the actual army of the Lord, which although unseen, would make a noise going through the trees. He was told "then shall the Lord go out before thee to smite the host of the Philistines."

Most of the fighting was done by an invisible host sent from the Lord and David had an easy victory.
The most famous incident in Gibeon was when Joshua gave the great command: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon." (Joshua 10:12) On that day, "The Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: and there were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword." (Joshua 10:11)

In this case, there was a great slaughter to the enemies of the Lord by the hand of his people, but there was even greater slaughter from God caused by the hailstones.

These incidents are interesting when we consider that the one Mighty and Strong will come "as a tempest of hail (as the Lord sent in the days of Joshua) and a destroying storm (as the invisible hosts of the Lord were in Gibeon), as a flood of mighty waters overflowing...." (Isa. 28:2)

Just as David defeated his enemies in Baalperazim as a flood of mighty waters overflowing a dam, so will God defeat his enemies as a flood of water which breaks down the illusion ands false doctrine which hold back the truth.

Again, these prophesies can be fulfilled either physically or on a higher level. The course is determined by those who have stewardship over the captive students and political realms of the earth. The events to come are more related to the natural law of cause and effect than it is the decision of an angry God.
If the powers that be attempt to physically destroy then they will be destroyed by the effect of divine fire that can no longer be held back after many ages of attacking the workers of light.

On the other hand, if they can restrain their response to the emotional and mental plane and only seek to stop the light with argument, reasoning, and even anger, yet remain harmless physically then that which will be given them will be on the emotional plane and higher, and not the physical.

Their worn out ideas and teachings will be destroyed in place of physical destruction and replaced by higher teachings of light. This will have the effect of being a "destroying storm" on the emotional plane, but that is better than a similar destruction on the physical level. The Lord says He allows this that "He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." (Isa. 28:21)

Why does He call this work "strange"? It is strange because in the last days He will have to fight against not the Philistines, but those who claim to be His own people. This is a strange, foreign, and repulsive thing for the Master to do, but to establish Zion He has no other choice. This incident is related in prophecy to come forth in the days of the "marred" servant:

"For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my beloved son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel; and I will execute vengeance and fury upon them even as upon the heathen, such as they have not heard." (3 Nephi 21: 10, 20-21)

Speaking of Israel in the latter days the Lord also said, "But they rebelled, and vexed his holy spirit: therefore, he was turned to be their enemy and fought against them." (Isa. 63:10)

It will indeed be a strange work when the Lord has to fight against people who claim to be his own, those who claim to represent Him, "as upon the heathen" in order to gather a people out of the people who will truly serve Him and seek in their hearts to establish Zion.

The Lord then warns His people: "Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord God of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth." (Isa. 28:22)

Here all those who claim to represent God are warned as well as the whole earth. The judgment will begin at the Lord's own house and from there spread over the earth.

Again, I repeat. Remember the message of Jonah. The prophesy does not have to end with calamity on the physical plane. The judgment of God could be a correction from God as the voice of the Spirit is allowed into the heart to speak to the souls of men and change them so the consumption will be a consumption of old outworn teachings and not a consumption of physical calamity.

Isaiah continues, "Give ye ear and hear my voice; hearken and hear my speech. Doth the plowman plow all day to sow? Doth he not open and break the clods of his ground? When he hath made plain the face thereof, doth he not cast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cummin, and cast in the principle wheat and the appointed barley and the rye in their place? For his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him." (verses 23-26)

Here again Isaiah refers to the '"stammering" teachings in a round about way. He asks the question to a backward Israel: "Doth the plowman plow all day to sow?" In other words, Is all the farmer does is plow all day, day after day? No! Sooner or later, if he has any sense at all, "when he hath made plain the face thereof" he will "cast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cummin, and cast in the principle wheat and the appointed barley and rye in their place." In other words, when he is finished plowing he will then plant the seeds.

Unfortunately, the churches in these latter days do not have the sense of a simple plowman for all they have been doing is plowing through the same precepts over and over and over for hundreds of years. We forget that "precept must be added upon precept" and the teachers never cast in the principle wheat and consequently never have a harvest, which harvest is the creation of Zion.

The fact that we do not get beyond the plowing stage is no fault of God's, for we are told that "His God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him." (Verse 26) God has instructed us to do more than the plowing, but we have not heard.

Isaiah continues, "For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. Bread corn is bruised; because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen." (Verse 27-28)

We are told that the fitches (probably fennel) are not threshed with a threshing (Hebrew: CHARUTS, which means a heavy sledge-like) instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin. If this type of crop were harvested in this pulverizing manner, it would be destroyed; instead "the fitches are beaten out with a staff (Hebrew: MATTEH, which is a stick), and the cummin with a rod (Hebrew: SHEBET, which is a whip-like stick).

By comparison, today we do not need the same old precepts that we should have mastered years ago hammered into us over and over with a sledge hammer. A light threshing of the simple doctrines is all we need to prepare us for the heavier.

Verse 28 is not a very clear translation and I would like to render it a bit plainer. "Bread corn" is undoubtedly wheat; and the word bruised comes from the Hebrew DAQAQ, which means to crush to powder. The word "because" is from KIY, which is more appropriately rendered "nevertheless". Taking this into consideration, we will render the passage thus:

"Wheat used for bread is ground to powder; nevertheless, he will not ever be threshing it, nor crush it with the wheel of his cart, nor grind it with his horsemen."

In other words, Isaiah here admits that wheat is threshed, broken and ground, but this process is not "stammered" or repeated over and over for it would be a waste of time and damage the grain in the process.

The message in these obscure words of Isaiah is this. The major problem of the church in the latter days will be that the teachers will be like a plower who just plows his field over and over and never plants or harvests his wheat. The authorities are also like the wheat miller who merely grinds the product over and over and never makes any bread. Teachers will go through the motions of beginning the creative process, but never produce fruit or bread. No food for the soul will be grown or given. Only the illusion that they are headed in that direction is projected. They do busy work by plowing and grinding, but no fruit or bread is ever produced - no real progress made. This illusion will create a trap for the teachers so when true food for the soul is offered the contrast between plowing and grinding and a finished spiritual food will be stark and embarrassing.

Isaiah ends with: "This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working." (Verse 29) This whole chapter indeed illustrates that the Lord is "wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working."

Thus we conclude one of the greatest chapters in all the scriptures.

Previously: The Drunkards of Ephraim

Late at night on July 22nd, after I had gone over the manuscript of my book one last time (did I mention I wrote a book?), I sent the final draft to the printer and went to bed.  The very next morning I wished I had waited one more day, because Denver Snuffer had written a piece that so encapsulated the entire theme of my book that it just screamed to be included as an afterward.

But I was too late. My book was going to press. And soon I remembered something else I had meant to include in the book, and a week later at the Sunstone Symposium Joe Jensen delivered a paper that would have been perfect in the appendix -if I had thought to include an appendix.

So, what follows in today's post are things I wish I had mentioned or included or linked to, had I not been in such an all-fired hurry to get the book to press. Think of the following bon mots as something like DVD Bonus Extras.

But first, a word from the Mrs.

Maybe I Should Listen To My Wife
Connie was never keen on the title I gave my book, What To Expect When You're Excommunicated: The Believing Mormon's Guide to the Coming Purge.

"People are going to think it's only for people who are facing excommunication," she insisted, "You'll lose most of the people you're hoping to reach."

I disagreed. I thought the title was clever and provocative, and anyone who saw it would be so intrigued they would buy it the minute they read the title. Besides, the only other name I could think of was I Have A Blog So Buy My Book.

I'm beginning to think my wife was onto something. Because the truth is, the book isn't entirely about excommunication. Now, if you happen to be one of the many believers currently facing an unwarranted excommunication from the LDS Church over a bogus charge of "apostasy," then chapter 7 will likely be quite helpful to you.

But the rest of the book is for the average latter-day Saint who is struggling to make sense of  the craziness going on in the Church of late. As a commenter on another blog recently expressed things, "It just feels as though we as LDS who want to follow Jesus Christ are in the middle of a terrible storm right now."

Many faithful Saints are coming to realize that the modern LDS Church bears little resemblance to the one founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. If you've done any reading in church history and wonder why the marvelous gifts of the spirit once abundant in Nauvoo seem to be missing in the church today, this book will provide an overview of how that happened and why.  It compares the revealed word of God to the foolish traditions of men, and will help you sort out one from the other. It asks and answers the pertinent question of the day: how did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which began as a theocracy (government by God) find itself largely transformed into an oligarchy (government by a small group of dominant elites)?

If you are convinced it's impossible for The True Church to ever go astray, this book may not be for you.  But for everyone else it will deconstruct that false teaching, and direct you to where the Book of Mormon prophets -as well as Jesus Christ Himself- predicted just the opposite. In short, this book is for every latter-day Saint concerned with the direction the modern Church appears to be heading, and provides solutions from the word of God as to how we can repent and get ourselves back on track.

But first we're going to have to recognize what we have to repent of.  Which brings us to that piece I mentioned from Denver Snuffer's blog.

After I had written an entire book describing the various causes in which the Christ-centered religion of my youth had been loosed from its moorings, Denver Snuffer comes along and distills it all into one simple truth: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apparently has only one doctrine left.

Here is the essay I wish I had included in my book as an afterword, presented here with his permission:

 Only One Doctrine Left
"In LDS Mormonism there is really only one doctrine left. Everything else is subordinate and changeable. But this single demand is paramount. If you disbelieve this position, then LDS Mormonism has no place for you. The doctrine:

"We follow a man whom we call a prophet."

"If you disbelieve this, and think you ought to follow Christ first, and the church's 'prophet' is secondary, then you are insubordinate and a threat. Believing that Christ comes first opens the possibility that Christ could tell you the 'prophet' is mistaken. That is intolerable.

"In LDS Mormonism it is allowed for the current 'prophet' to criticize and denigrate a former 'prophet.' This happens frequently. Even editorials now appear on the LDS.org website rejecting Brigham Young's teachings as wrong, even immoral. The new, living leader has the 'keys' and the contradictions are viewed by blinded followers to be 'proof of continuing revelation.'

"Therefore these contradictions are valued by the deceived. An unchanging God has error prone key-holders who can guarantee his contemporaries their salvation. This is even if later key-holders proclaim the earlier leader's mistakes. All of this is only consistent if you believe the central, single doctrine. If you question it, the whole construct begins to look foolish and riddled with error.

"When I joined LDS Mormonism there were many doctrines. None of them put President Spencer W. Kimball into a position of a dictator. Indeed, President Kimball earned our loyalty and respect by his meek example and the content of his sermons. He denounced modern idols, and criticized the war-like nature of our country. But no one demanded a loyalty oath, insisting that veneration of him took precedence over worship of Christ. I believe if President Kimball heard of such a thing being taught he would have vocally and immediately spoken against it. He denounced Ezra Taft Benson's sermon about Fourteen Fundamentals for Following the Prophet. But today these are taught in General Conference!

"LDS Mormonism has changed since I first joined. So much so that I no longer belong in an organization that holds one and only one doctrine as its bedrock. I believe Christ alone is worthy of veneration. I do not believe I must follow a man to be able to follow Christ. I do not believe I should look to the example of some man in order to be able to see Christ.

"This radical and false shift of the religion has happened in my lifetime. I never engaged in this idolatry while among the LDS organization, and I refuse to accept that kind of religion now. It is false. I reject it.

"Insofar as the LDS Church 'believes' in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the revelations through him, including the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, I honor them. Insofar as they testify of the Book of Mormon and preach from it, I believe and accept it. Therefore I see some considerable merit to the LDS Church. However, their current single fundamental doctrine is false. Utterly false.

"If you extend the fundamental LDS doctrine to its logical conclusion, it is also satanic. It abrogates free will, requires obedience to a man even if he tells you to do something which you know to be wrong (a principle that has been taught in General Conference), and requires you to abandon your own agency. Since I believe everyone will be accountable before God for their choices in the Day of Judgment, the paradigm is false and will not protect you. You may think the 'key holder' will absolve you of your mistakes, but God will judge you. If you are asked to do something wrong, and you do it out of veneration for a 'prophet you will not be spared, but you will be judged and condemned.

"There are many good people in the LDS Church. There is also some considerable good done by the LDS Church. But when adulterers, liars, idolaters and the ignorant who preside in wards, stakes and areas of the church insist their personal unworthiness is excused because they are loyal to a priesthood line of authority, as we presently find in the church, then someone needs to proclaim faith in Christ and repentance. Even if only one voice will speak up, God will vindicate faith in Him in the end.

"The Great Whore will always outnumber the few who are Christ's sheep. But that cannot detract from Christ's affection for those who hear His voice and defend His religion."

The Latter-Day Apostasy
Just days after submitting my manuscript to the publisher, I attended the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City where one particular presentation struck me as something that would have been perfect to include as an appendix to my book if I hadn't already been too late. It was Joe Jensen's presentation titled The Latter-day Apostasy: A Scriptural Perspective.  During the rest of the symposium, and for days afterward, I was still hearing quite a bit of buzz about this one. And for good reason. 

I have recommended Joe's website, Just And True, many times in the past, and the transcript of this talk is available there.  Sunstone has also provided the audio on this site here, so you can listen to it if you wish.  Just scroll down to Session 224, and click on the arrow below the title. You can also purchase it from the Sunstone site on CD. I'd recommend it.

What I really wish is not so much that I had included Joe's presentation in my book, but that I had written the thing myself because it's phenomenal. Joe has performed an invaluable service to all of us by examining the subject of apostasy from every conceivable angle of interest to Mormons, and concludes -no surprise here- that the real iniquity in the LDS Church is always fomented from above (as our founding prophet Joseph Smith lamented in a quote on page 152 of my book).

Brother Jensen presents the correct (and scripturally accurate) definition of apostasy as found on the LDS Church's official website ("When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel") and then juxtaposes that with the fraudulent definition provided to local leaders in the corporate Church Handbook of Instruction.

"There appears to be one definition of apostasy for public consumption," Brother Jensen writes, "and another private directive to church leadership." It is this latter, completely arbitrary definition that is used today by some in high office who desire to strip faithful believers of their membership in the Lord's church.

One of the things that really caught my attention was Joe's discussion of Nehor, the notorious Book of Mormon apostate.  Among the things Nehor advocated for was that the leaders of the church should enjoy certain perks and privileges, including being supported by the people so they didn't have to hold down normal jobs like everyone else, and being treated like celebrities. 

I have a friend who worked at Church headquarters for several years, meeting frequently and answering directly to two well-known apostles.  Once he was able to find more suitable employment, he resigned, and was glad to be out of there. "These guys," he told me, referring to the apostles, "are treated like rock stars. And they act like they expect it."

I won't name the particular apostles my friend worked under, in the interest of protecting his identity, but he also told me jaw-dropping tales of waste, abuse, and cavalier attitudes toward large amounts of money spent on dubious projects, "because they believe they can do no wrong." And although no one really knows how much our general authorities are compensated for their "labors," based on the lifestyles my friend observed, he believes the sum is quite substantial.

All this in a Church that boasts of having a humble unpaid clergy, as the Book of Mormon requires.  In the first book of Alma, we learn that Nehor loses his temper and kills a guy, so Nehor is executed for committing murder, and that's the end of that.

Except it seems that now the spirit of Nehor -"the only person in the index of the LDS Scriptures to be branded an apostate"- lives on today in the pampered and popular hierarchy of the LDS Church.

Also worth noting is Brother Jensen's reminder that the Lord has insisted that for His church to be legitimately His, it must be "called in my name" which our church certainly was for many decades.  But we now know that the the name of the church was legally changed by Heber J. Grant on November 26, 1923, with the new entity retaining the original name only as a trademark that is now held in reserve by Intellectual Reserve, Inc, the copyright arm of the corporation. This is no matter to be taken lightly, as Jensen submits:

"To be His church, the organization must be called by His name, be built upon His gospel and demonstrate the works of God....The current formal name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This seems to fit the requirement although this is only the trademark. The legal name of the organization is The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the holder of the copyright of my triple combination. Buildings and facilities typically show ownership as the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop or other entities. Does this meet the Lords requirement?

I can't stress how important I feel it is for you to read this entire essay. I don't even care if you stop reading my words right now.  Click on this link and get yourself an education about what it really means to be in apostasy.

Strangers In Zion 
In my newly published book, I discuss how growing numbers of faithful, believing latter-day Saints have gotten fed up with the direction the LDS Church appears headed and have vowed to stop supporting it. Many of these devoted members, though they remain committed to the Restored gospel, are resigning from the institutional Church in protest.

I have never advocated resigning from the Church, for a variety of reasons. In the first place, this is our church. Nowhere in scripture can you find any indication that God has given an elite priest class the authority to own or control His church. In the second place, when you resign from the church, others assume you have lost your testimony of the gospel. You appear to them as just another apostate, a turncoat. Whatever statement you intended to make by leaving is lost on your fellow believers, because they don't want to hear your reasons. Your voice is therefore not heard, and your valiant stand for truth and righteousness is ignored.

So last month a group of believers led by Micah Nicholaisen, one of the lights behind A Thoughtful Faith Podcast series, has come up with an alternative to resigning. They call themselves Strangers In Zion, and they are saying, in effect, "If you're going to hold disciplinary councils on our brothers and sisters over matters that heretofore have never warranted such action, then we insist you hold disciplinary councils on us, too, because we share the same views as those you have targeted."

It's a pretty radical idea, but I like it. No sooner had the website been publicized than over a hundred church members signed on, drafting letters challenging their local leaders to convene Church courts and try them for the "sin" of refusing to kowtow to authority.

On August 18th, Strangers In Zion founder Micah Nicholaisen was disfellowshiped from the Church, and he appears none the worse for the experience. The real oddity about the whole thing is that Micah was disfellowshiped for holding the very same views that Kate Kelly was excommunicated over.

Excommunication is a much harsher punishment, yet this Church insists its women are treated no differently than its men.

Here's a photo of Micah and his family taken today after church. Note that Micah has a beard, is not wearing a tie, and his shirt isn't white. This is proof that he is lost to us forever.

Oh, and his prepubescent daughter is wearing a sleeveless top, so she's lost, too.

As much as I find the idea behind Strangers In Zion strangely endearing, there may be an even better way to work the needed reforms. That would be to hold disciplinary hearings on the real apostates.

Throw The Bums Out?
When I was in Salt Lake City last month I had conversations with a group of concerned Utah Attorneys and professionals who, except for one, are all present and former high council members.

They posed a simple question: why should believing members resign from the church in protest, or fall on their swords like Micah Nicholaisen and others are doing, when the Lord has already provided us with the remedy to this problem?

What they propose sounded intriguing to me, and I'm interested in hearing how things  develop.

In my book I express the belief that the current rash of senseless persecutions we are seeing are not the work of a concerted, unified pogrom instituted by the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From what we know so far, this craziness is likely the work of one or two rogue apostles, just as it was twenty years ago with the the September Six. They appear to be aided by two or more members of the Quorum of the Seventy who, for various reasons, are overclocked with ambition and zealotry. (I go into greater detail in the book as to why they chose this particular time to tip their hand.)

Since the identities of some of these men are known, all that is necessary to rein them in is to convene a Council of Elders and try them for apostasy.

Easier said than done, you say?  Yeah, could be.

Actually the idea is scripturally sound, but given the climate of the Church today, it might be as Quixotic as trying members of congress for violating their oath of office. Everyone knows they're guilty, but who's going to call them on it?

The remedy does exist for putting things back in order. Doctrine and Covenants section 107 makes it clear that not even the president of the Church himself is immune from prosecution for violation of his office.  And the body of the Saints are qualified to conduct the trial. Where something like this has a chance of making a difference is that the unfavorable publicity that would result from calling out GAs who constantly break the rules might itself be enough to get the other members of the Twelve to finally step up and put a stop to the usurpations of their brethren.

Is there evidence to convict a general authority of apostasy?  Man, is there ever! Finding evidence is not the problem. Some of  these so-called "leaders" violate Church law routinely and openly. You know the adage: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Human nature is the same whether in politics or religion.

This committee I've spoken with suggests the most appropriate target would be the recreant apostle Boyd K. Packer, because Packer was responsible for a DVD that thoroughly renounced the teachings of Jesus. I wrote something about that video in my post titled Vengeance And The Latter-day Saint and I have seen for myself how Packer has twisted and misquoted both scripture and the modern prophets (in particular the First Presidency back in 1942) in order to present a deliberate distortion of doctrine that suited his own agenda. He'd fit the bill, all right.

So right about now you've decided these guys have lost their minds, right? You think it's a nutty idea to threaten high Mucky-Mucks in the Church to get them to shut up and sit down?  Well what do you think they've been trying to do to us down here at the bottom of the totem?

It doesn't sound any crazier or less effective to me than resigning from the church to try to make a point.  Maybe it's time the members of the body of Christ stood fast and reclaimed their power as members of the church of Christ, and kept a closer watch on those at the top whose personal ambitions have clouded their judgment.

As D&C 20:80 instructs, "any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct."  So the way it would work is two or more witnesses belonging to Boyd Packer's stake would have to come forward and testify that the video he promoted teaches false doctrine.  Frankly, that part would be a cakewalk. The difficult part would be in getting a council of Elders from his stake with the integrity to call out a GA in this day and age when we've all been conditioned to believe these men are beyond reproach.

Anyway, it's something to think about, and it's certainly an intriguing idea whether it's feasible or not.

What I do know is this: we have to put a stop to this divisiveness that's tearing the church apart simply because one person's views don't line up with someone else's. This is not the way to unify the church.  Maybe it is time to rein in those leaders who are letting their thirst for control cloud their judgment.  If they wish to lead, then let them lead, but what we're seeing now isn't leadership. We have enough problems in the church today without everybody making things worse.  Like the title of Lori Burkman's recent post puts it, If It Keeps On Raining, The Levee's Going To Break.

What To Expect When You're Out Of State
People have been asking what's the latest with my situation?  Well, the other thing that happened the day after I sent my book to press was that I finally got the call from my stake president in Sacramento wanting to meet with me for the first time. I had been expecting his call for two months, ever since that meeting with my bishop where I was given the ultimatum to shut up, get out, or get kicked out.  Since I was in Utah when he called, I told him we'd have to get together when I got home.  When I got home I called him and told him I wasn't well, and he said he'd call me back in a couple of weeks.  This is one week later. Maybe I'll call him.

So that's the update. Here's a few more odds & ends and then I'll wrap this up:

A reporter from The Daily Beast did a story on the Sunstone Symposium and quoted me spouting off at the end.

The Blog Nearing Kolob has compiled a chart listing many of those who have been, or are in the process of being brought up on charges of apostasy.  I don't know how current the list is, but it's interesting to look at.

One of my online heroes, Tim Malone, posted a review of my book today.  You can read it here at Latter-day Commentary.

I hope you'll take a look at my book. And better yet, I hope you'll buy it.  In the midst of all this blabbering, did I mention the title? I don't think I did.

It's called What To Expect When You're Excommunicated: The Believing Mormon's Guide To The Coming Purge. You can find it at Amazon, and also at Benchmark Books in Salt Lake City. But be advised that as of yesterday Benchmark Books is down to their last ten copies, so you may want to call first.  By the way, I finally got hold of somebody at the publisher and got them to reduce the price of the book overall, so there's some good news. I never was comfortable with it listing at fifteen dollars.

My thanks to all the wonderful people who reviewed my book on Amazon and said such kind things about it. (Except you, Payton Chalmers.) I greatly appreciate your input and welcome more comments. (Again, Payton Chalmers, I'm talking to everybody but you.)

Updated September 1, 2014, 7:14 AM: 
Whoo-hoo! I just found out I've sold TWO BOOKS already this month! You read that right, my friends. Two. That puts my Amazon Ranking at #63,094.  I only have to sell sixty-three thousand and ninety three more books today and I'll be at number one!

Come on, people, we can do this!


(Psssst! Hey! Click Here!)


Important Note About Posting Comments:
As announced previously, henceforth all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted.
I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifiyer so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others posting as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage  in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not.

Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous. When you post a moniker using that method, I don't have the ability to track who you are (not that I would want to) and neither does anyone else. So it makes sense to use that feature if you wish to keep your true identity hidden. All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part. If you find it necessary to fill in the URL, you can put any link in the URL box you choose, such as Youtube.com, Amazon.com, or even LDS.org

Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one.

Previously: What I Left Out Of My Book

My favorite thing about this blog has always been the comments that follow each post. That's where my real learning takes place, as readers share their knowledge, opinions, interpretations, and insights gathered from their own studies. Often they'll mention helpful links to other online resources, all of which serves to give both me and the other readers a fuller understanding of the subject under discussion.  Sometimes we'll veer far from the original topic, but I don't care.  I like watching the conversation go wherever the readers want to take it. Discussions are not always orderly or on-point around here, and often things go wildly off topic. But that's fine by me. 

Over the years many regulars have become friends here, not just to me, but to the entire Pure Mormonism community of regulars. So today this post is going to be a bit different from my usual entries. This one will be a tribute to a departing friend.  The commenter originally known by the username "LDSDPER" will soon be crossing over into eternity.  She has, at best, only a few days left on this planet, and so before she goes I wanted to share with her what her friendship has meant to me. My hope is that I'll get this written in time to have her husband read it to her before she's gone.

LDSDPER is without a doubt the most readily recognized commenter on this blog -and the most prolific. She often posted several comments a day, sometimes simply expressing herself, other times engaging in conversations with other readers.  Eventually she announced she was going to change her username to something a bit more pronounceable, but then she admitted she couldn't readily come up with any ideas. To those of us who had come to know her, somehow that seemed entirely in character.

So, not being able to think of anything better, for the time being she dubbed herself "NoNameForNow."  The name was intended to be temporary, but now it is enshrined as the permanent name of a good friend who did not know her last comment would be her last one when she wrote it in July. Now that she has no further need for anonymity, I have been permitted to reveal the identity of this woman who has become a friend to many here. Her name is Celia. Celia Scheinost.

Celia had become increasingly frail and helpless for some months, until pretty much the only thing she could do was sit at her keyboard and type.  The cancer had taken over her body in these final months to the point she could no longer walk outside, or stand in her kitchen, or even hobble her way through her own home.  But she could still sit at her computer and manage to type.  So she expended what energy she had engaging in this community. This blog, and the people who frequent it, were her friends. This was her community, the people with which she had so much more in common than anywhere else. And so she stayed here and chatted until she could manage to chat no more.

Celia's husband, Craig, took her to the hospital when things got so bad that even she no longer protested about going. When everything that could be done for her there was done, Craig brought her home Saturday to spend her remaining days in her own bed. Craig wrote me on Sunday that her first day home, she asked him to read aloud to her from the Book of Mormon, which he did for 45 minutes.  Then she asked him to read a few pages from my book, which she had started before she got too weak to finish.   They are three quarters of the way through it, and Celia is determined to finish it before she goes.  I told Craig to tell her she should focus on the Book of Mormon. I mean, really. What difference does my silly book mean at this point?

Celia and I have been corresponding by email ever since she learned my own wife had been somewhat of an invalid herself.  A year or two ago we spoke on the phone, and after I handed the phone to Connie, the two of them became fast friends and spoke for hours.  Connie can clearly identify with what Celia has been going through.

Until recently, Celia gave no hints to the other readers of this blog that she was experiencing such serious health problems. In fact, most readers didn't even suspect she was a woman. She was cryptic and protective of her privacy, and one reason she embraced this community was because her family had come to feel misunderstood and ostracized by their home ward.  Over time she came to mention in her comments that they had adopted their three children, at least one had been a special needs child, and that sometimes members of their ward in Wisconsin had difficulty coping with one or all of them.

The children were either "special needs" or extremely precocious -take your pick. Their oldest daughter was not shy about voicing her objections in church when she saw the official narrative they were feeding her didn't gel with the scriptures. She came to realize early on that the Church history she had been taught had been largely whitewashed and bowdlerized. As a teenager she brought things up in class that teachers did not know how to react to, and so she was made to understand that her "doubts" were dangerous and she should keep them to herself. Craig and Celia had found another daughter in a Romanian orphanage, malnourished and neglected at five years old. The oldest boy has high functioning autism, and was often a challenge to Sunday School teachers   Ward members did not know how to handle him, so they would often end up treating him badly.

Celia's sister told me the entire family was eventually treated like they were the ward weirdos. "It's like 'well, you're not like us, so we don't know what to do with you.'"

In time, feeling shunted aside, the family withdrew to their house in the woods and relied on their home ward less and less. Celia found the caliber of Mormons who read my blog more to her liking, and we became her church community. Before long she was engaged in stimulating conversations here with many of the other readers. Like many Mormons similarly disaffected, she was finding fulfillment in a spiritual community in cyberspace that did not seem to exist inside a chapel.

Celia frequently apologized to me for the length of her comments, and how she often strayed off topic. But like I said, I like watching the conversations go wherever the readers take them.  A lot of my readers prefer things free-form as well.

And besides, Celia's diversions were part of her charm. She had an eccentric style of writing that made her posts instantly recognizable to everyone on the board; just about every time she wrote a single sentence, that sentence was followed by double spacing, as if each and every sentence was a paragraph of its own.  Frequently she would do this with sentence fragments, too, framing a loose phrase with double hyphens front and back, as if to give it emphasis.  So with her posts, there was lots of space between each thought. If you were going to read a comment posted by LDSDPER, you had to be prepared to do a lot of scrolling.

Other readers would engage with Celia in stimulating theological discussions, some that would continue for days, and all of us would benefit from the wisdom of the collective conversation.  It will surprise none of the regulars, then, to learn that Celia has no fear of dying. She is excitedly looking forward to moving into the next phase. Her biggest regret will be leaving her husband and children behind.  But she almost can't wait to meet Jesus again, and to see her young niece, Delsa, who died nine years ago after a difficult struggle with cystic fibrosis.

Regular readers will be familiar with the commenter who often posts here under the name MajorJohnButtrick. Major John is the husband of Celia's sister, who is Celia's closest friend and confidant. Delsa was their daughter.

All of Celia's children are now grown, and all are accomplished musicians. Her son, the one with autism, is 29 and a brilliant pianist. Eldest daughter, 25, is a harpist who provides atmosphere at fine restaurants and special events. And their youngest, the girl Craig and Celia rescued from that orphanage in Romania, is a brilliant First Chair violinist currently in high demand. I'm told she could work in any orchestra she chose to. So although these children had their difficulties, they were raised in a very loving home and rose above their challenges.  Sometimes the best thing one can do for one's children is to get them away from adults and teachers who see only their limitations.

Here's A Story You Won't Hear In Sacrament Meeting
Major John told me an interesting story on the phone yesterday. He and his family live in Texas, where there's a state lottery. So recently he was in the shower when he received distinct instructions from the spirit that he should drive to a particular Shell station and buy a lottery ticket.

He thought "that's bizarre, because I don't play the lottery." He is, after all, a devout Mormon, and it is not in his makeup to gamble, not even once in awhile. Still, he was told quite clearly to go to that location and buy a Scratcher. He saw in a vision the precise look and colors on the particular Scratcher he was directed to buy.

(For those who live in states where there is no lottery, a Scratcher is a ticket sold at gas stations and convenience stores, usually for a dollar each. There are up to a dozen different varieties of scratchers with different themes, just like you'd see different themes on slot machines in a casino. The buyer scratches off the numbers on the card, and if three numbers come up the same, he wins the amount shown.)

The spirit told John to first tell his wife what he was supposed to do, then take her with him and together they would buy the ticket. So John got dried off and went and told his wife what he had heard. She looked at him for a moment, then grabbed her purse and said, "Okay, let's go."

When they got to the gas station, John asked the attendant for two scratchers of the type he had seen in his vision. He immediately heard a voice say, "I only told you to buy one."

So John bought just the one.

This wouldn't be much of a story if it didn't turn out that ticket won. It did. That one dollar Scratcher hit at $500.00, which just happens to be the highest amount you can win if you want to get paid instantly. So they cashed it in and got paid instantly, and on the way home of course they began to wonder what the money was supposed to be used for. Was it to go toward Delsa's significant medical bills? That was the obvious explanation because even nine years after their daughter's death, no matter how much they paid toward that massive debt each month, it seems it would never be paid off. They couldn't quite get confirmation about that though, so they decided for the time being they'd take the money home and sit on it until they got some kind of answer.

Two hours later, Linda gets a call from her sister Celia. Celia's in the hospital. The cancer is stage four, having completely taken over her body. She may not last a week. Celia knows John and Linda don't have much means to do so, but is there any possible way Linda can come up and be with her before the end comes?

The purpose for that lottery money instantly revealed itself, and Linda was on her way. She is with her sister now. Celia is fortunate to have the comfort of her husband and children with her as she exits this life, as well as the only friend she has in the world who truly understands her.


Celia discovered this blog during the height of the 2012 presidential election season when a piece I wrote was linked at The Daily Paul, a sort of clearinghouse for those with libertarian leanings that was then receiving a million hits a day. She was delighted to learn there was an entire universe of fellow Mormons who shared her outlook, and she Private Messaged me.  Afterward, when she commented on my blog, she reminded me she was "the LDS Daily Paul-er" who had written me previously, and she subsequently used a form of that as her username, shortening it to LDSDPER.  I'm sure most everyone here has wondered why she picked such an awkward moniker. Now you know what it means.

As Celia's health continued to fail, the family's circumstances declined also. Craig's work hours have been reduced to 35 hours a week -every other week. When I announced the availability of my new book, she excitedly commented on how she was counting down the days -eight- until they would have some money so they could order a copy.  I would not allow it. Although I didn't have any hard copies of my own to give her, I immediately emailed her a pdf copy I converted from my final draft.  No way was she expected to shell out for my stupid little book.

Besides, I recalled that Celia was not even able to hold a book any longer. She had mentioned previously the difficulty she had holding up Daymon Smith's first book. It was just too heavy.  Craig has been printing out the document versions of those books, which she would then read by holding up one page at a time.  So now Craig was able to print my book out on her printer, which she picked up and read page by printed page.

Among the many things Celia has written about here in recent months, the thing that has clearly made a difference to both her and Craig has been the decision to follow the advice of Daymon Smith and give the Book of Mormon a fresh reading, without thinking about it in terms of its relationship to the bible, and unencumbered by Sunday School manuals, commentaries, Church teachings, and other filters.  Just the pure Book of Mormon, as given to us in 1830 before the first converts corrupted it with their muddied interpretations. Celia has exclaimed many times what a difference that has made in her understanding of what the Lord's purpose was in our reading of it.

She has come to realize that the Book of Mormon as it was originally given to us is really the only thing we latter-day Saints should be concerning ourselves with for now. Not "the Church," not all these claims of priesthood authority, not the counsel to follow the leaders, not the countless rules and checklists that have become stumbling blocks that get in our way. Not the conference talks and articles in the Ensign. Not even, for the time being, the Doctrine and Covenants.  Before all else, even before we pick up and read the other Standard Works, it's necessary for us to go back to our roots and read just the Book of Mormon in it's simplicity. If re-examined by itself, independent of the noisy trappings piled onto it by the LDS Church, that book will lead us to Christ.

Celia has been reading it the way it was meant to be read. And she's ready. Any day now she will be in the arms of Jesus Christ.

The rest of us can only envy her.

                                                               *****
One Final Request
Actually, two final requests. First, this is your chance to say goodbye to our mutual friend. I'm certain many of you feel the same as I do; that Celia has been an integral part of this community, and she will be greatly missed. I honestly don't know how I'll get used to her absence on this forum.

But if we're lucky, she'll stick around long enough so that her husband has the chance to read aloud some of your final words to her. At this time, Celia is lucid and aware, so please feel free to share your feelings in the comment section below.  Most of us don't usually have a chance to pay tribute to our friends while they're still around. This time we do have a small window of opportunity while our friend is still with us.

Here's my second request: Celia's family does not have the means to cover funeral and medical costs. Naturally we can't expect to cover everything, but we can make a dent. I know my readers are a generous lot; many of you need merely hear of a need, and you're on it. So if the Lord happens to inspire you to send a few dollars to this family to assist them in this difficult time, I hope you will do so. I know Celia will rest much easier knowing the family was given a leg up by her friends.

MajorJohnButtrick has assisted Craig in setting up a Paypal account into which contributions can be deposited. The email address to use for that is  cscheinost@charter.net

For those who would rather send a donation by check, the address is:
Craig Scheinost
909 S. 10th Ave.
Wausau, WI 54401

Just a few days ago I happened to make mention on Facebook that my bank account had been hacked and my rent money stolen out from under me. I mentioned that just to point out how foolish I had been because I felt I was immune from that sort of thing. I thought that because I almost never had any money in the bank, thieves would find nothing to steal. I was wrong. They can always take the rent money.

Days later, some donations from virtual strangers appeared, which caught me by surprise because I was certainly not soliciting donations, nor seeking pity. Connie and I had, however, prayed that the Lord would assist us in getting us out of this fix so we could make the rent, and as these offers of help came in, I immediately recognized this was His way of answering our prayers.

The amount we were short was $500.00. We ended up being blessed with more than that, so now that  our immediate needs have been met and the rent paid, I have sent the excess on to Craig and Celia.

I will tell you something I believe with all my heart, and it's a belief I have arrived at through my own experience. Those few people who sent us assistance will soon find themselves blessed for the kindness they showed to us. Most likely that blessing will arrive in the form of added prosperity on their heads.  That's how the Lord works when you are generous with your means. Money flows out, and then it flows right back in, often in greater abundance.  But here's what is more exciting: Their kindness has multiplied by my having forwarded their gifts on to those more worthy than us.  The givers may as well brace themselves, because they're going to be blessed with even greater abundance.  It may not always work out like this when you give to an institution, but it does when you give to individuals. That's how the universe works, my friends. You ALWAYS come out ahead.

Now go thou and do likewise.

Previously: Saying Goodbye to Celia

I was just informed that that our mutual friend Celia Scheinost passed on peacefully this morning.  The following is from Celia's sister:

All,
We want to thank each of you for the love and support you have given the Scheinost family, the wonderful words of encouragement that you have provided, and not least of all, the financial support to help them in this difficult time. Celia was able to have your messages read to her over the last several days, until a couple of days ago when she was not coherent. We can’t express the love we have felt from all of you, and how important these words were to her. You are all truly disciples of Christ.

Her oldest daughter was with her when she passed, and the last thing she heard was her daughter reading from the Book of Mormon – Mosiah chapter 2 (one of her favorite chapters). The last thing read to her was the last verse of that chapter (verse 41): “And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.”

How appropriate.

The nurses at the Hospice house have said that studies have shown that the ear continues to hear things after death, for sometimes up to 30 minutes. After Celia’s heart stopped, her daughter felt impressed to break out her smaller Celtic harp, and played the song “Into the West” from The Lord of the Rings movies. If you are unfamiliar with this song, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgcoBKWTW14

This is the same song performed by Celia’s daughter for her cousin, our own daughter, at her funeral. Though this is difficult, we cannot imagine a more peaceful passing.

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping

[Chorus]
What can you see
On the horizon?
Why do the white gulls call?
Across the sea
A pale moon rises
The ships have come to carry you home

And all will turn
To silver glass
A light on the water
All souls pass

Hope fades
Into the world of night
Through shadows falling
Out of memory and time
Don't say: «We have come now to the end»
White shores are calling
You and I will meet again

And you'll be here in my arms
Just sleeping

[Chorus]

And all will turn
To silver glass
A light on the water
Grey ships pass
Into the West

Love to you all, --Linda

In that book, compiled from speeches and articles written as far back as 40 years ago, Nibley lamented how far we have come from attaining a Zion society, which was supposed to be our principal goal from the moment this church was founded. Nibley asserted that rather than getting closer to Zion, the Church seemed be running lickety-split in the other direction. He noted that the Church in our day has more in common with Babylon than with Zion. He reminded us that Church leaders named Babylonian institutions like the local Federal Reserve branch “Zion's Bank,” which is as close to a slap in the face as you can give to God without hurting your own hand. Nibley made some very pointed barbs toward those in Church leadership, yet no one in the Church hierarchy moved to excommunicate him for his criticisms as they later did Denver Snuffer. Nibley was a beloved and respected Church scholar all the way up until his death at age 95.

Recently I’ve heard from several devout members of the church, most of them women, telling me they have been interrogated by their bishops and stake presidents merely because they were known to have attended one of Denver Snuffer's lectures. Four of them immediately had their temple recommends revoked, their church callings rescinded, and told they were prohibited from taking the sacrament. Others I know have been disfellowshiped, and some were excommunicated. On what grounds? “Associating with a known apostate” is the reason most frequently given.

Denver Snuffer clearly has such a testimony, and he bears it frequently. But because he is a non-member (through no choice of his own) you can now get called into the Church principal’s office and get suspended or expelled just for being in the same room with this guy.

Hoooo-chee, Mama! Remind me not to cross that guy. David Bednar is so fully convinced of his special place in the firmament that if you forget to address him with the proper degree of deference, he will dress you down one side and up the other right in front of the the whole assembly! Bet you won't make that mistake again.

Previously: The Problem With Denver Snuffer
 
If you'd like to see how difficult it can be to follow the counsel of Church leaders and still retain your membership in the church, take a look at what happened last Sunday to LDS blogger Adrian Larsen and his wife, Tausha. They were excommunicated for essentially heeding the advice of one of our apostles.

Apostle David Bednar has of late been concerned with how Mormonism is often wrongly perceived and misunderstood, and so last August Elder Bednar gave an address at BYU in which he encouraged individual members to flood the internet and social media, with the aim of correcting falsehoods about the church, promoting truth, and boldly testifying of Christ. This is what Adrian Larsen has been doing with his Mormon-themed blog To The Remnant since early summer: correcting falsehoods, promoting truth, and boldly testifying of Christ.

But because Adrian did so, last Sunday a high council was convened in his stake and he was expelled from our society for the sin of apostasy.  So was his wife, Tausha, in a bizzare, highly unusual double-excommunication proceeding in which both were tried and sentenced together in the same proceeding.   Both had been devoted members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all their lives, yet in one afternoon representatives of that same Church officially declared them to be apostates and pariahs.

It is still not clear to either Adrian or his wife why Tausha was given the boot, since she herself had never blogged or written anything that anyone on the High Council ever alluded to. The only thing they can conclude is that Tausha was expelled because of guilt by association. She is the wife of a Mormon blogger. Apparently that is now an egregious sin, in and of itself.

It also wasn't clear to either of them from the proceedings what act of apostasy they were accused of having committed, for under the traditional definition, in order to be an apostate one must have at some point renounced his or her former beliefs and and actively fought against Christ and His church, something neither Adrian nor Tausha has ever been accused of.  Rather than accuse either of these good people of turning their backs on the faith, the High Council focused their interrogations on a particular post of Adrian's, the fourth part of a series on "Hearsay and Heresy" which he titled Never Led Astray. I found this post to be highly readable and extremely informative.  And frankly, I cannot find any factual errors anywhere in it.  This piece appears to be right in line with Apostle Bednar's charge to all of us to combat the pervasive misconceptions about Mormonism by countering them with truth.

Adrian has kindly given me permission to republish his controversial post below. Perhaps others reading it can detect where he has promoted falsehood rather than truth, or failed to adequately testify of Christ. If so, I hope you will help me understand what the controversy is by pointing those findings out in the comment section afterward.  

                                   Never Led Astray
                                                                     By Adrian Larsen

I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Nephi 4:34)

In the previous posts in this series, we've examined some manufactured quotes--falsely attributed to Joseph Smith--which are used to promote false doctrine. Among the ideas promoted:

• The majority of the twelve can never go astray.
• The records of the church can never go astray (not sure how they could...)
• The majority of the church members can never be misled.
• The majority of the church members will go to the Celestial Kingdom, and
• Anyone who says otherwise is on the high road to apostasy.

Oh yeah...and the moon is inhabited by people that dress like Quakers.

Now make no mistake, the above ideas are FALSE, never taught by Joseph, not supported by scripture, and frankly really stupid if you think about them. They were made up in an effort to strengthen an agenda and win a historical power struggle with other branches of the restoration movement. Yet we persist in believing and teaching these ideas, even featuring them in our official church manuals. We find it more important to win an argument than to be on the side of truth.

Not good, but it gets worse. 

If we really want to get to the root of the problem we must consider the holiest of the holy grails of unbelief.

Warning: Confronting unbelief is never easy.You may find the following uncomfortable to consider. I sympathize with you; this wasn't easy for me, either. All I can do is plead with you to please hear me out. If you love God, value truth, and want to develop real faith, you'll need to confront your unbelief and seek truth above tradition. Saving faith can only be founded upon truth. If it is founded upon anything else, it is not faith. If confronting unbelief is the only way to know God, I'll gladly make that trade.

OK, on to the problem. This is the 800-pound gorilla of false doctrine that affects every part of the church from top to bottom. It is simply stated as follows:

The Prophet can never lead us astray.

The mantra begins in primary, where we march to the drumbeat of "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray."

By the time we reach adulthood, we take great comfort in the idea that no matter what, as long as we're following the prophet, we're A-1 guaranteed entry into the celestial kingdom, because there's just no way the guy can ever make a mistake.

So pervasive is this unbelief, that we've now placed the prophet in a place of priority above the scriptures, above the truth, and even above the Lord. These are bold statements to make, but they are absolutely true in our religious practice and beliefs.

For examples, look to Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, a talk given by the apostle Ezra Taft Benson in 1980. In this talk, Elder Benson asserted, among other things, that words of the prophet are more important than what is written in our scriptures, that anything that comes out of the prophet's mouth is revelation, and that even if the prophet tells you to do evil, God is bound to honor you for doing it. 

When this talk was given, it was roundly rejected by Spencer W. Kimball, who was the prophet at the time. In fact this talk very nearly earned Elder Benson a formal rebuke from the First Presidency, and he was required to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve and explain himself to a combined meeting of all the general authorities of the church. In short, President Kimball was MUCH displeased with what was said, and considered it false doctrine.

Oddly enough, the same talk, filled with the same false doctrine, was just given in General Conference in 2010, without a peep from the Twelve, the First Presidency, or the general membership of the church. Nobody bothered to address how the doctrine could be false in 1980, but true 30 years later. Did God change the doctrine? Or did someone else?

So consider this: Brigham Young taught many things that the church has since flatly denied and openly called false (polygamy, Adam-god theory, blood atonement, refusal to ordain blacks, for example.) Obeying Brigham in these items nowadays will get you excommunicated. Yet when Brigham taught these things, he insisted he was speaking the word of the Lord. 

Was Brigham wrong? Or is the church today wrong? Remember saving doctrine never changes. God does not vary. Somebody was wrong. Somebody misled you. Was it Brigham, or is it today's leaders? They can't both be right.

This deserves careful thought. Your salvation is at stake.

Since this series is about origins of doctrines, let's go back and take a look at where this particular doctrine of infallibility came from. Like many issues in our history, it all starts with polygamy.

As you may be aware, during Joseph Smith's day, the practice of plural marriage was limited and secret. But Brigham Young went public with the teaching in 1852, advocating plural marriage as a necessary part of the LDS faith, which he practiced with gusto.

Due to national backlash about this practice, government persecution threatened plural marriage in the LDS church. Seeking protection under the first amendment, Brigham began forcefully teaching that polygamy was not only part of the LDS religion, but a fundamental part of the belief system--so essential, in fact, that exaltation was simply impossible without polygamy. It was polygamy or damnation. Period.

By insisting plural marriage was so fundamental a part of the religion, Brigham hoped the religious freedom guarantee in the first amendment would protect the practice. 

The church then commenced a 30-year series of court battles against various laws and attempts to curtail polygamy. Losses mounted for the church as government pressure and threats increased.

By 1890, in a final blow, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Edmunds-Tucker act, disincorporating the church and seizing church assets, including the temples. Though Wilford Woodruff, church president at the time, had previously vowed that the church would never give up polygamy, he found himself in a tough situation.

On the one hand, there had been 40 years of insistent teaching by prophets that polygamy was absolutely necessary for exaltation, that the church would never abandon it under any circumstances, and that the Lord would uphold the church against all its enemies. 

On the other hand, there was the U.S. government, which had already disincorporated the church, seized church assets, and publicly stated it was coming for the temples next. Meanwhile many church members and leaders were languishing in jail, facing court fines, and living in secret to evade the law.

Wilford Woodruff was indeed in a tough situation. 

Faced with the destruction of the church and no chance of statehood for Utah, under pressure from the government, he issued the press release now known as the Manifesto (Official Declaration 1), in which he stated that the church would no longer perform plural marriages. This statement was designed to mislead congress into believing the practice would actually stop. 

Not to be misled, congress insisted that the statement not only be published in the press, but actually presented at General Conference and sustained by the church membership as a binding policy change.

And so it was that on October 6, 1890, Wilford Woodruff found himself standing at the tabernacle pulpit, before the church and the world, reading a statement that said he now intended to do what he swore he would never do, and which he himself had taught the Lord would never allow. He intended to publicly abandon polygamy. But he needed political cover for this fundamental change in the very foundation of then-practiced LDS mormonism. As one doctrine was abandoned, he needed another to justify it. 

So he said the following:

"I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

And thus was invented the doctrine of infallibility, now applied to each President of the LDS church. 

Why can't the President lead you astray? Because he said so.

Of course, the doctrine has since grown and expanded to the point that rational people actually believe they can safely entrust their salvation to another fallen mortal man, despite pointed scriptural warnings to the contrary. They actually consider it safe to surrender their agency to another, not realizing that this was Lucifer's plan from the beginning!

The doctrine teaches that it is impossible for the prophet to lead us astray, and that if he attempts to do so, the Lord is obligated to kill him. Seriously. And we're OK with that? Knowing how many mistakes I make, I'm sure glad I'm not the prophet...
This doctrine is not scriptural. This doctrine did not originate with Joseph Smith--Joseph actually taught the opposite. I'd say more along these lines, but there's no way I can possibly hold a candle to the summary given by Rock Waterman in his blog, Pure Mormonism:

"You can search the scriptures and the general conference archives until your eyes swim and never find one instance of a recorded revelation from God declaring the prophets will never lead us astray, or that God wants us to "follow" them.  We didn't get that doctrine from God. We have it because one fine day in 1890 Wilford Woodruff just pulled it out of his butt." 

Not much I can add to that. 

Wilford said it, he got the vote he needed to convince the congress he was serious, even though he wasn't (the church secretly continued polygamous marriages until at least 1904), and Utah got statehood. 

As a by-product, we were left with a lie.

We've since repeated the lie so often and so well, with so much passion and embellishment, that it's become THE new foundational doctrine of the LDS church. A recent example from General Conference states, "We have the Lord’s personal promise that the prophets will never lead us astray." I'd love to know when and where the Lord made that "personal promise." But all I can find is an apocryphal premise.

We've replaced polygamy with infallibility. 

Today, the prophet can do no wrong, and therefore, by extension, the church can do no wrong. And if it's impossible for the church to be wrong, then there's really no need for individual LDS members to do anything other than "follow the prophet" right into the Celestial Kingdom. 

We've traded the Savior's injunction of "Come, Follow Me" with Satan's imitation, "Go, follow him."

Cursed, indeed, is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Nephi 4:34)

Speaking of our day, Nephi said, "...they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men." (2 Nephi 28:14)

Therefore, in our day:

• ALL are astray
• Except a few who are humble followers of Christ
• And these humble followers are misled by their leaders in MANY INSTANCES.

Therefore if you're not astray, you're likely misled. 

So what's the solution?

There's really no need to despair. The gospel of Jesus Christ is designed to save you without the need for a man to act as the intermediary between you and God. Remember, "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and He employeth no servant there." (2 Nephi 9:41) Salvation is an individual endeavor between you and God. It always has been. 

Certainly the church offers important things we need: Ordinances, opportunities to serve, a community of believers to love--in short, a lab in which to practice the gospel. 

But when it comes to the one you should follow, you can go to God yourself. You can receive the revelation you need. You can even commune with angels and know the Lord face to face. The most important first step is to actually receive the Holy Ghost. Know why? Because the Holy Ghost is the one who truly can't lead you astray.

I'll talk more about that in a future post. Until then, ponder this:

Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. (2 Nephi 32:3)

 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5)


                                 Afterward by Rock
Since the members of the stake high council that excommunicated Adrian and Tausha Larsen acted in violation of scripture, outside their proper authority, and contrary to the counsel given to members by an actual apostle of the Lord who encouraged us all to be actively engaged in countering false information, we can always hope these excommunications will be overturned on appeal to the First Presidency, right?

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath.  In spite of the numerous assurances by official Church Spokespersons that there is no effort to tell local leaders to keep members from blogging or discussing questions online, Adrian Larsen is only the latestof many who have been disciplined for blogging and discussing questions online. Take a look at this transcript by Brett Larson after he was ex'd, or consider the appalling disposition of Mormon blogger Will Carter's appeal here.

What is supposed to happen after an excommunication when either party is dissatisfied with the result is outlined in our Doctrine & Covenants:

“Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made.” (D&C 102:26-27)

But the Church doesn't operate according to scripture anymore.  What happens these days is that the Brethren in Salt Lake never do review these cases. Instead they automatically defer to the local leaders as having made the right decision. 

When you have been officially declared an apostate by men in your stake who hold high callings and important titles, that means they're right and you're wrong.  No further review is necessary.  Shut up and wear that Scarlett 'A'.

                                                                *****
    UPDATE Monday, October 20: At the very time I was writing an reposting Adrian Larsen's piece, he was posting a follow-up to this one, which contains further insight as to what occurred, what it means, and how we all need to take a close look at the true damage being inflicted on the church we love.  In short, this is essential reading. It's important, the kind of thing I wish I had the power to shout from the rooftops.

Adrian's latest is entitled 40 Days On Death Row and you can access it by clicking here.                                                     

Important Notice: I again remind those who wish to comment that posting only as "Anonymous" is no longer allowed. You do not have to use your real name, but if you insist on choosing "Anonymous" from the drop-down menu, you must invent a username and place that either at the top or bottom of your comment so that readers can tell you apart from the many others who for some reason keep choosing to post under the anonymous option.   If you have a Google registration, use that one, otherwise it's best if you check the box that says "Name/URL", place your preferred username in in the "name" box, and ignore the box that asks for a URL. That way you can still remain anonymous if you so wish, but then other readers have a handle to address you with when responding. Comments missing any kind of identifying moniker are at risk of being deleted. I'm very strict about this because too many people posting as "anonymous" has created chaos in the past.