Too Many "-archies" in Hierarchies

Yes, I said "girl."  And why not?

Today everyone seems to be debating between patriarchy and matriarchy; and over all kinds of -archies ― but it's all malarky.

All we're doing is moving pieces around to see who gets to sit on top.  The problem?  There's still a "top." 

It's like arguing over whether to bury or cremate the body: what difference does it make?  No matter who wins, it won't change the fact the corpse is still dead.

The problem is hierarchy itself.

The distinguishing characteristic of the Nephite Zion was that they "were all made free" (4 Nephi 1:3).  And what was the cause of their "freedom?"

   1.  They were equal (4 Nephi 1:3); and
   
   2.  They were all "partakers of the heavenly gift" (4 Nephi 1:3).

If we look at it in reverse, then bondage or captivity would be defined by:

   1.  Being unequal; and

   2.  Not letting everyone partake of the heavenly gift.

In the early days of the Restoration, the Lord promised to make us free, too:

   Wherefore, hear my voice
   and follow me,
   and you shall be a free people,
   and ye shall have no laws
   but my laws when I come,
   for I am your lawgiver,
   and what can stay my hand?

(D&C 38:22)

Notice that freedom comes from following the voice of God; not from marching behind the rank-and-file leadership of the Church.  

When the leaders seek to become our "lawgivers," creating all kinds of rules and policies for the members, then we are in spiritual captivity.  

What About Women?

Are women "equal" in the Church?  Do we permit them to partake of the heavenly gift?

In order to improve the status and role of women in the Church, we're going to have to do a lot more than allow them to be witnesses at baptisms.  

On the other hand, it's a big mistake to frame this as a "give-women-the-priesthood" issue.

Let me explain . . . . 

Women and the Priesthood

Those who advocate for women to sit in the presiding councils of the Church are missing the bigger picture: the Church hierarchy is organized in the image of Babylon the Great.

Giving women the priesthood is not going to fix the underlying problem (and might even magnify it by increasing pride, status and inequality in the Church).  

The Bride of Babylon

We know Zion is depicted as a Bride in scripture.  Her eternal mate is the Risen Christ. 

And so, of course, Babylon styles herself that way, too.  Minus the husband (she wants none).

Babylon is the False Bride, which the scriptures impolitely call "the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10-12). 

The False Bride is the archetype of all false religion.  She appropriates the customs, dress and language of the Bride Zion, so it can be hard to tell them apart.

But it helps to remember Babylon is beautiful!  She builds the most elegant temples for her children.  She's impeccably dressed.

I mean, it's time we stop thinking of Babylon as a drunk john lying in a pool of vomit in some back alley in Amsterdam strewn with dirty needles and STDs.

Because Babylon-the-Bride appears clean and holy (at least on the outside).

​What Does "Abomination" Look Like?

When we picture "abomination," do we imagine vices that are puss-filled, pox-marked, poor-smelling, putrid-looking, and poisonous?

Babylon doesn't want to sour our stomachs; to the contrary, she wishes to whet our appetites!

This the devil knows.  All the worst sins, the devil knows, are gilt with gold.  They shimmer like silver.  They repose on scarlet cushions in the image of respectability and religiosity.

The best way to deceive the "very elect" (if possible) is to make them feel at home: in comfortable chapels that serve as prisons ― in religions that draw us away from the pure gospel of Christ ― manifesting a form of godliness without the power thereof.

And that is the snare of hierarchies. 

Hierarchies make us comfortable in our inequality; we suppose they resemble heaven when in fact they mirror hell.

Rescuing the Restoration

If women wish to rescue the Restoration, it will not be through repeating the errors and excesses of the Brethren and replicating their priesthood structure.

Our young women, mothers, single sisters, old and young, black and white, gay and straight, are at the heart-and-center of the Lord's ongoing Restoration ― not by climbing a ladder, but by destroying it!

I have faith in the women of the Church because who else is better suited to teach us the nature of the Bride, Zion? 

Because Zion is a marriage that produces family, not leaders.

The Fifth Gospel

Paul wrote to his friends in Galatia:

   I marvel that ye are so soon
   removed from him that called you
   into the grace of Christ
   unto another gospel:

   But though we,
   or an angel from heaven,
   preach any other gospel
   unto you than that which we have
   preached unto you,
   let him be accursed.

(Galatians 1:6, 8)

Well, just how many gospels are there? 

It appears Paul is implying there is only one true gospel, which he describes as the gospel of "the grace of Christ."

Any other ain't gonna cut it.  

In the New Testament there are four canonized Gospels chronicling Jesus's mortal ministry: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (Joseph Smith changed the titles of "Gospels" to "Testimonies" in the JST, but I'll continue to call them Gospels here).

And there are lots of other Gospels, of course ― such as the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Peter ― which are considered pseudepigrapha (writings attributed to historical figures who were not the actual authors).

But the question is whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the "gospel of Christ's grace" as Paul instructed? 

And if not, whose gospel are preaching?

Which gospel do we teach in the Church?

Perhaps the best evidence of the gospel we believe in is not the one we preach, but the one we practice.

If we sit down and think about this for a minute, we'll discover the truth.  It's a little secret which we don't talk about: it's okay to ignore those Four Gospels; in fact, we can disregard the entire New Testament.

You think I'm kidding?

We have created a sort of "Super-Gospel" for members of the Church, which has become the Fifth (and greatest) of all the Gospels.

But is it the same gospel as Paul taught? 

Let's see: is this illusive Fifth Gospel, you ask, some kabbalistic treasure trove of Jesus's lost sayings?  Is it the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon?  Will we find the vision of the Brother of Jared in its pages?

   No.  

​The Fifth Gospel is the Church Handbook of Instruction.

The Gospel of the Prophet

The Gospel of the Prophet goes back to Wilford Woodruff who taught that he could never lead the Church astray, thereby leading the Church astray.  

There's a popular story that President Woodruff shared in 1897 (more than 50 years after the incident, but who's counting?)

"Brother Brigham took the stand and he took the Bible and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants,and laid it down before him.  And he said: 'There is the written word of God to us concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.  And now,' said he, 'when compared with the living oracles [living prophets] those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.'"  (Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, Oct. 1897, 22–23).  

Isn't it odd, this statement, saying that for us to have "the word of God direct to us now" it has to come from a prophet?

And here I thought that was what the Holy Ghost was for:

   I say unto you
   that if ye will enter
   in by the way, and
   receive the Holy Ghost,
   it will show unto you
   all things what ye should do.

   [Notice - It is God through the Holy Ghost (not through the prophet) who shows us all things we should do]

   Behold, this is
   the doctrine of Christ.

(2 Nephi 32:5-6)

Nephi would have had a field day with the way we have corrupted the priesthood; Nephi would look at the elaborate Chess Board we have turned the priesthood into, with its pawns and bishops and kings, and he'd knock the whole thing over. 

"What were you thinking?" he'd say.

So what is the priesthood actually for, then?

   And this greater priesthood
   administereth the gospel
   and holdeth the key
   of the mysteries of the kingdom,
   even the key
   of the knowledge of God.

(D&C 84:19)

Where can we find this kind of priesthood?!

Anathema

The Fifth Gospel is the Gospel of the Living Prophet (just take the name of the current President of the Church and stick it after "Gospel").  In the Gospel of Nelson, for example, it is written:

Thou shalt not take the name of Mormon in vain.

So we've made the word "Mormon" anathema?  Is that what the gospel is about?  Is this the "gospel of grace" Paul taught?

President Nelson said, "Being passionate about using the correct name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a vital way that we as a people take His name upon us."  (Russell M. Nelson, "The Everlasting Covenant," Liahona, Oct. 2022)

Uhhh.  Then why did none of his predecessors get the memo over the past 200 years; and why did President Gordon B. Hinckley expressly reject then-Elder Nelson's position on the name of the Church?  Trouble in Paradise?  And why did his immediate predecessor, Thomas S. Monson, sponsor the "I'm a Mormon" campaign if this was so "vital"?

Something's not adding up.  Here's what I find so interesting about the Gospel of the Living Prophet: the "living" part. 

As a living Gospel, it changes and twists and turns depending on who is at the head.  Never a dull moment! 

No more stodgy old Gospels whose manuscripts were copied by monks on crumbling parchment; now we have the clarity of presentism to guide us.

Instead of an eternal and everlasting gospel of love we get one that is "till death do us part" (you know, until the prophet dies and is replaced; we treat the seniority of the Twelve as mechanically as a PEZ dispenser). 

The other day I was reading a Facebook comment by a member of the Church who rudely rebuked another person for calling us "Mormons," comparing it to a disparaging racial slur (you know the one). 

As I read the thread of comments, it struck me (as if I needed any further evidence this policy was not of God) how faithful members of the Church are now offended at others' use of the nickname "Mormon" (which never bothered them before President Nelson's talk).

Do we think our moral outrage pleases God when we chastise his children for calling us "Mormons?"

Why is it some members seem strangely delighted to catch others committing this infraction in order to correct them?  Is it to virtue signal their loyalty to the prophet?

Why are these pious individuals hell-bent on making others "an offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21)?  They are like body builders in skimpy speedos at a competition flexing their biceps as if their oiled, bronzed muscles will impress us, signaling their allegiance to the prophet.

But why don't they flex their muscles in support of the gospel of love and grace?  I rarely see members indignant over the way the poor and marginalized are treated in our wards.

I worry, though, because these loyal soldiers of the prophet appear to be doping on the steriods of obedience to a Gospel that is not Christ's.

Victory for Satan?  Yes, indeed, but not in the way they think.

One Gospel to Rule Them All

In the exalted presence of the Fifth Gospel, all others wilt away into obscurity. 

   Into obsolescence (I've alluded to this in a previous post, "Is the General Handbook Really Pseudepigrapha?").

We can scientifically show that the Fifth Gospel is supreme in the Church because whenever the Four Gospels conflict with it, the Fifth Gospel prevails.

But don't worry!  Just because the Fifth Gospel has never been canonized and has never been accepted by the membership of the Church; and just because it has no authorial attribution and is anonymously written; and even though it institutionalizes priestcraft and is posted online in all of its electronic majesty so it can be altered, changed, amended and rewritten without notice with just a click of a button, faster than a digital, Orwellian blink; and just because its contents are as impermanent as the morning dew, changing according to the whims of the current regime . . . .

. . . just trust in the Fifth Gospel!
​
New Motto:  "In [the Handbook] we trust."

Titanic, Meet Iceberg

I'd like to conclude this Series with the hardest and most important lesson I learned from Clark Burt in the Stake Sunday School Presidency. 

If you are just joining us, you may catch up here:

Part 1: In the Mouths of Two or Three Witnesses
Part 2: In the Mouths of Two or Three Witnesses
Part 3: In the Mouths of Two or Three Witnesses
Part 4: In the Mouths of Two or Three Witnesses
Part 5: In the Mouths of Two or Three Witnesses

​In 2016 Camelot came to an end when Clark was abruptly released and our Sunday School presidency dissolved.

Clark's release was honorable; the leadership called him to serve as a High Councilor in a BYU Student Stake where he continued spreading the pleasing word of God to younger hearts and minds.  I'm sure the students didn't appreciate what a gift they had been given!

As a parting gift Clark gave me a copy of the book The Blessings of Abraham: Becoming a Zion People.

​Becoming a Zion people?  Wouldn't that be nice!  But remember: during this time in my life I was "waking up" to the fact that all was NOT well in Zion. 

   What was Clark trying to tell me?

This was a turbulent time for my faith.  I was deconstructing my beliefs and struggling and yearning and wrestling with God.

This had been going on for a long time; my faith journey had stretched across several years by this point, seeking answers and wanting to know God's will for me.  And for my young family. 

   And for the Church!

Which Church is True?

​Back in 2016 we still had 3 hour Church (remember that?). 

But on the clear spring morning of Sunday, April 17, 2016, I felt the need to be alone.  So after Sacrament Meeting I begged off Church, making some lame excuse to my wife, and headed home early, skipping Sunday School and Priesthood.

With my kids in Primary at the Church I was able to have the house to myself (which was as close to a Sacred Grove as I could get).

I knelt down and leaned on the greenish/gray couch we used to have in our family room with fabric like corduroy that was worn where we sat on it.

The house was unnaturally quiet.  

I poured out my heart unto the Lord and I received two answers ― though not exactly ones I looked for.  

The first answer I received was a gentle rebuke.  The still small voice said, "You have not relied upon my word enough."

"Enough" (that doesn't sound very God-ish, I know, but it is hard to quote the Lord).  I recalled the words the Lord spoke to Oliver Cowdery as if they were given to me personally:

   I give unto you a commandment,
   that you rely upon the things
   which are written;

   For in them are all things written
   concerning the foundation of my church,
   my gospel, and my rock.

(D&C 18:3-4)

So I knew I needed to redouble my scripture study because apparently the answers to my questions about the Church would be found there.

The second answer was not so black-and-white.

Got Faith?

The Lord said to me, "There is much good, and there is also much error, in the Church.  Men do not always follow my will."

What was that supposed to mean?

Well, I understood (not from the words but from the Spirit) that "men do not always follow my will" referred to both the leaders and the members in the Church.

Maybe I wasn't crazy!  It was comforting, really, knowing leaders can in fact lead us into error.  It explained a lot.

The result of this experience had a big impact on my walk with God.  I was no longer agitated in my Spirit. 

I was comforted knowing the Lord was aware of what was happening in the Church and that He had things well in hand; and that the Lord was in fact working in and through all churches and faiths and peoples; that "good" and "error" were universal, really, so I should stop thinking in black-and-white of "is the Church true or not?" because it's both and neither; and there are paradoxes of faith I have not yet comprehended; and the Lord is drawing beauty from ashes all over the place as His watchful gaze encompasses all of His children across the world; and this was all long-ago prophesied in scripture.

That's a lot, I know (the Lord can really pack a lot of information into a few words!).  But things were proceeding apace.  Gives a guy peace to know that.

And now for the part about how Clark played into all of this.

Timing Is Everything

I have learned that the answers we seek are generally in plain view, and have been all along, but we were not prepared to see them. 

It must be part of the Lord's sense of humor to leave these things hidden in plain sight.  The secret is not discovering something hidden, but to discover a new way of seeing what's right in front of us.

​Everything I was "discovering" were things that Clark already knew.  He had learned them long before me.  After all, they are right there in the scriptures!

This is why I titled this Series, "In the Mouths of Two or Three Witnesses," because the Lord led Clark and me to the same place through our study of His words: Trust the Lord.  Place our faith in Christ alone.  Love as He does.  

Not so complicated, is it?

In his own way, Clark had been telling me these things all along, but I wasn't "hearing" them.  My ears weren't tuned to the language he spoke and so I wasn't able to interpret what he was saying.

The language, of course, is the word of God we find in the scriptures and which comes alive in His Spirit. 

It's like being colorblind and seeing rainbows in only black-and-white, and then one day you see one in its full-color splendor!

With my ears unstopped, I understood at last what Clark meant when he said:

"Just as the Lord's people Israel suffered the Lord's covenant curses when they were taken by the Assyrians and were captured and taken to Babylon, we too, as the Lord's latter-day people, will suffer the Lord's covenant curses.  And it will be for the same reasons.  It is always the failure of the Lord's people to repent that is the catalyst for these judgments, and we cannot say that the scriptures have not adequately warned us."

If that statement made any sense to you, then you, too, see what it took me decades to decipher with my spiritual dyslexia.

Clark's Prophetic Warning

Clark taught:

"In Nephi's endtime scenario the Mormon Gentiles' final fate hangs in the balance depending on whether or not they harden their hearts against His words by setting their hearts upon the things of the world and putting their trust in men.  

"Mormon Gentiles carrying on as if a lesser law constituted the whole law has led to their 'ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth' (2 Timothy 3:7).  It is the word of God we do not heed that will condemn us (2 Nephi 33:14).

"This raises a specter of something Mormons may never have imagined of themselves, only of others, that this time around we are the ones whom God warns and calls to repentance lest we perish from the earth.

​"In Jacob 5 we read that when 'the end soon cometh' the Lord of the vineyard directs his servant to call other servants to assist him in grafting branches from the three daughter trees (the house of Israel comprised of the Jews, the 10 Tribes, and Lehi's descendants) back into their own olive tree. 

"What triggers that event, however, is that the mother tree has brought forth much fruit but 'none of it is good' because of the wild branches 'overrunning the roots' and 'taking strength unto themselves' (Jacob 5:29–69). 

"That being so, why is no one today inquiring into the tree’s 'much evil fruit' (Jacob 5:37)?

"The great and marvelous work began with the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon.  There are an additional fourteen events associated with the Lord's great and marvelous work that have not yet happened and are indeed endtime events which will take place in domino fashion before the Lord's second coming. 

   (1) God's "setting his hand the second time" to restore the house of Israel.

   (2) God's "baring his arm" in the eyes of all nations. 

   (3) God's servant fulfilling a mission to the nations.

   (4) The Gentiles, including so-called believers, reject the fulness of the gospel after having received it.

   (5) God's performing his "great and marvelous work" among the nations.
 
   (6) Gentiles, including so-called believers "fighting against Zion."

   (7) The spiritual kings and queens of the Gentiles shall nurture the house of Israel.

   (8) The house of Israel (Jews, 10 Tribes & Lehi's Descendants) will receive the fulness of the gospel.

   (9) God's righteous people will be endowed with power.

   (10) The House of Israel returns from the four directions of the earth.

   (11) The destruction of the wicked.

   (12) The deliverance of the righteous.

   (13) The house of Israel receives lands of inheritance.

   (14) The Father fulfills His covenants with the house of Israel.

I encourage you to read more of Clark's teachings on his blog, Given by the Finger of God and to read in particular his unedited post that I have excerpted here, "An Awful State of Blindness."   

(https://fingerofgod.blogspot.com)

You will discover, as I have, a teacher come from God.
         _____________

I just need to say, after reading that list, if any of us are feeling exhausted, drink some caffeine because the Lord has a lot (!) of exciting things in store for us.  There are adventures coming our way we never dreamed of.  Buckle up!

It's Us, Not Them

Now Clark has moved out of state to Arizona but we stay in touch.  One of the things I love is how he continues to teach me.

For example, anyone who has read my poetry and this blog know I give the leaders a hard time.  

But Clark has been helping me to understand it's not the leaders' fault.  

He's shown me that our leaders are merely a reflection of ourselves; the Lord gives us exactly the leaders we deserve.

In other words, we prop up prophets who teach the commandments of men because that's what we as a people truly want.  Our leaders are a manifestation of our hearts.   

​Clark taught me:

"I don't see this particularly as a 'top down problem,' but as a result of the members' apostasy.  It becomes 'top down' because we like it that way and abdicate our responsibility to the leadership.

"We get the type of prophets we want and therefore we have the prophets you describe.  We become disciples of Moses, or whoever the current prophet is, because that's who we want.  If we wanted Samuel the Lamanite or King Benjamin we would have them.

"The irony is that we do have them and still prefer the church prophets.  They (the members) choose this because it is easier than searching the scriptures to know for themselves.  Just like the children of Israel not wanting to see God (send Moses instead), we choose the hierarchical system over the word of God. 

"Everything you warn us about in your blog existed with Israel’s ecclesiastical leaders anciently and is the same, as prophesied, today.  It was a sad time for me during the early 90s [seeing the unrighteous dominion of leadership] but I remembered what Jeremiah said, 'My people love to have it so.'"

   _____________

So now I have tempered my views and have begun to exercise more charity towards our leaders. 

I can see how we've put them in a tough position.  

So today I ask you to pray for the Brethren.  They really do need our prayers and love.

Love Co-Authored

Charity is the greatest of all.  Some time ago Clark shared with me a poem he wrote that teaches an important principle about love. 

The excerpt I quote below reminded me of the sacrifice Eve made by partaking the fruit (as a type and shadow of the sacrifice we all made by coming to earth) and being cut off from God as a condition of the Fall so that we might be added upon; but what I had not considered before was how Eve is a type of Christ himself.  Think of Him as you read these words:

​   If everything is everything
   who would risk it all?
   Only those who love
   know love is risking all.

As a tribute to Clark, I would like to continue the poem by adding my own stanzas and testimony to his (this is something I've not done before, but they say the sincerest form of flattery is imitation). 

Jesus is All

   We heard the tender calling
   of Him who gave up all
   condescending to our plight
   to pluck us from the Fall.

   We summoned Him to earth
   our Savior Lord of All
   His broken heart through which we burst
   Gehenna's gateless wall.

   What love was this, what mercy!
   that bowed before us all
   and washed our feet with worthiness
   not ours but His withal.

   The risk we cannot fathom
   our hopes in Him were all 
   see now our names all written
   in the blood of sangreal.

​Thank you, Clark, for teaching us His word!

No Cause for Consternation

This week I signed up on my Ward's list for an appointment to meet with the bishop for [*drum roll*] Tithing Declaration (formerly known as Tithing Settlement).

This should prove an interesting interview!  As I rode the early train to work this morning I thought, "Why not make my Declaration publicly?" 

Especially since I said something in my last post, Q&A: Obedience and Church Government, that was somewhat controversial.

"The important thing to remember is that requiring obedience to a tradition is bad.  Word of Wisdom.  Tradition.  Tithing?  Tradition.  White Shirts?  Tradition.  Deacons passing the Sacrament?  Tradition.  Baptism?  Not tradition."

I don't think people liked me calling tithing a tradition because we've been taught it is a law of God which we must keep.  I think this post will be eye opening for those that hold this view.

The context for my remark was a broader discussion about the way our traditions can easily devour the word of God as a tiger swallowing a wildebeest.

"In modern terms, we see the same thing with the Word of Wisdom.  The revelation came as wise counsel, and was specifically NOT "by way of constraint."  Then the Church began creating traditions and interpretations around it.  The tradition, over time, became more important than the actual words God had given.  Now the Church enforces the tradition (through a Temple Recommend Interview) instead of the revelation itself ― which was supposed to be elective all along.  You see what a mess it has become."

A mess?  Can the same be said about tithing?  How has tithing become a "tradition?"

Don't Pick at Scabs

As a young man I played football for my school.

My position on the scrimmage line was left guard (I was too big to be a running back and too clumsy to throw the ball; but toss my body in front of others to block?  No problem.)

One hot afternoon on the practice field I was injured during a skirmish.  A defensive player's shoulder pads got locked with mine like the horns of two mountain goats fighting over territory. 

In the process, something sharp and jagged shredded my lower shoulder and upper arm, leaving a long bloody gash.

The thing I remember about my injury was how my dad encouraged me afterward to apply Vitamin E to the wound to reduce scarring (I still have a scar, but it's hardly an impressive Football Injury to brag about).  

Vitamin E came in little capsules and for several weeks I used my mother's sewing needles to pierce the capsules and push the sticky liquid onto my red, puckered skin.

The second thing I remember was my dad telling me to stop picking at the scab and allow the wound to "be."  

Tithing is something of a scab.  It itches my spirit; it's a pustule that weeps pus in my heart; a thorn in the side of the gospel used to purchase entry into the temple.

After I wrote the Series "Thou Hast Made an End of Tithing," I thought I was through with this topic. 

Believe me, I take no delight in writing about tithing.  Some people get fired up about women's issues; or gay issues; or race issues; and all of those are important to me, too, because I have covenanted to mourn with those that mourn.  But it stings like cold iron when I see tithing being used as a tool of priestcraft ― it affects every one of us.

So this morning on the train I felt like maybe it wouldn't hurt to pick at this scab just a little more.

Why Are Religious Traditions Bad?

When I talk about traditions, I am not talking about giving pj's on Christmas Eve or cooking a goose for Thanksgiving.

We all have many wonderful, harmless, endearing traditions. 

But religious traditions are different: they become a hedge we build around the law; and as a hedge blocking our path, even so traditions impede our coming unto Christ by getting us to stop short, viewing the Tree from behind the hedge where we are unable to pluck the fruit thereof.

They arise when we take any commandment, principle or doctrine and begin telling others how they're supposed to faithfully obey it (like how many knots we can tie on the Sabbath before it becomes "work").

Let's take a harmless example: church worship music.  We want the songs to be sacred and so the Brethren do not allow electric guitars to accompany us in Sacrament Meeting.  

But I don't know if you have noticed how often the scriptures talk about rejoicing and shouting and clapping for joy.  Hardly the reverent strumming of a harp's strings, to be sure.

And so we concoct a "proper" version of reverence, playing hymns like funeral dirges, and think God is pleased?

What makes the sound vibrations produced by an organ so much more spiritual than a bass guitar?

   Tradition.

But here's where it gets tricky: once a tradition is born, we will begin developing new commandments, principles and doctrines based on the tradition!

This is why requiring obedience to traditions is so dangerous ― because traditions multiply and replenish like locusts that consume God's word, leaving us famished.

I don't want to gloss over this point.  When we extrapolate doctrine from our traditions, we've really put the cart before the horse.

​President Packer was famous for doing this, like in his Unwritten Order of Things talk, which was an apologetic for our traditions. 

I don't know about you, but that talk sent shudders down my spiritual spine.  When we give authority to our traditions, we are saying, "Whether the tradition is correct or not, and whether we've consulted God or not, and whether there's a better way or not ― the important thing is we're doing things as we've always done them, which means they must be right, right?"

Zechariah warned us not to become too attached to our traditions, which have a way of making us intractable and hard-of-hearing to the whisperings of the Spirit.  The prophet Zechariah said:

   Oppress not the widow,
   nor the fatherless,
   the stranger,
   nor the poor . . . .
   But they refused to hearken,
   and pulled away the shoulder,
   and stopped their ears,
   that they should not hear.

   Yea, they made their hearts
   as an adamant stone,
   lest they should hear the law.

(Zechariah 7:10-12)

I love the imagery in this passage that describes us "pulling away the shoulder" and "stopping their ears that they should not hear" ― like my toddlers when they ran across the kitchen floor with no clothes while I tried to herd them towards bed, telling them to put on pajamas and brush their teeth, and they covered their ears with their hands, crying, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"

Didn't President Packer understand that the Catholics had already cornered the market on tradition?  Quite literally: in response to the Protestant Reformation the best theologians in the Catholic Church met during the Counter Reformation, and in the Council of Trent (1545-1563) they developed two sources of authority: (1) Scripture (herein they agreed with the Protestants) AND (2) the tradition of the Church.

How dare we accuse the Catholic church of apostasy for governing through councils and tradition when today WE'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME!

To continue with our example of worship music, I remember reading then-Elder Packer saying: "We would be ill-advised to describe [sacred gospel themes] in the company of rock music, even soft rock music. . . . I do not know how that can be done and result in increased spirituality.  I think it cannot be done."  (Boyd K. Packer, "The Arts and the Spirit of the Lord, 1976).

Here we see Elder Packer leaning into his tradition and his upbringing, drawing conclusions about rock music and "modern beats" based on the Church's musical culture that he was familiar and comfortable with.

​But ask your Evangelical friends how many of them can testify that they have been spiritually edified listening to modern Christian soft rock music?  

Traditions are rooted to our cultural bias and experiences.  But the Lord's gospel transcends such inconsequential things as time and culture.

My Tithing Declaration

Considering the gymnastics the Church has put tithing through, here is my Declaration:

I DECLARE that we do not keep the law of tithing as it has ever been revealed by God to man.

   (1)  Tithing Was For the Poor. 

​Melchizedek (the person, not the priesthood) received tithes from Abram for a particular purpose.  Guess what the divine purpose of tithing was in the City of Peace, or Zion?

   And this Melchizedek was called
   the king of heaven by his people.
   And he lifted up his voice,
   and he blessed Abram,
   being the high priest and keeper
   of the storehouse of God;

   Him whom God had appointed
   to receive tithes FOR THE POOR.

(Genesis 14:36-38, JST)

Do we pay tithing "for the poor?"  No, we collect tithing from the poor.  

What an upside-down world we live in.  We tell the poor folk in Africa to pay tithing, and why?  So they can receive the blessings that come from paying tithing?  That's a poor excuse, I think, for grinding the faces of the poor. 

What do we need their money for?  Is it to build chapels and temples and pay for sexual abuse settlements (to the tune of $250 million) and the salaries of Kirton and McConkie lawyers and to fund the BYU universities and vacation homes for the apostles and a fleet of vehicles and gardeners and security guards and computer programmers and the budget of the Church Office Building and . . . . boy it's expensive to have a respectable church these days!

   (2)  Tithing Was Paid in Kind. 

​Remember when, under the Law of Moses, tithing (the heave offering) was paid in foodstuffs?  It was like a potluck supper that everybody rejoiced over together?  We shared a meal and broke bread as brothers. 

What I like about tithing under the Law of Moses was the way it was intended to bring the priests and the laypeople together in unity and shared fellowship.

   (3)  Leaders Were Not Exempt from Paying Tithing.

The priests under the Law of Moses were not exempt from tithing.  But in the Church we don't tithe tithing, do we?  We exempt mission presidents and who-knows-who-else (like the General Authorities) from paying tithing on their "necessary living expenses" (despite the fact that Church employees and university staff and faculty must pay tithing on their earnings in order to retain their employment).  

Read carefully the following passages from the Mission Presidents Handbook: 

Okay, well-to-do mission presidents get a pass on tithing while we require poor saints to pay?

"Wait, Tim!" someone objects.  "It says right there that if mission presidents have outside income they should pay normal tithing in their home wards."

True.  So we need to figure out what is "reimbursed" by the Church, which is NOT tithed.  Well, lucky for us, the Handbook tells us (no, not the public one; I'm talking about the secret Handbook for leaders).

Leaders are reimbursed for "necessary living expenses" which include:

   - food
   - clothing
   - household supplies
   - family activities
   - dry cleaning 
   - phones
   - modest gifts
   - medical expenses
   - dental care and eye doctors
   - support for full-time missionary dependents
   - travel expenses
   - school expenses
   - extracurricular activities
   - babysitters
   - undergraduate tuition for dependents
   - utilities
   - rent
   - life insurance
   - health insurance premiums
   - a gardener
   - (yes, this is for real) a part-time housekeeper and cook.

You think I am making this up?  No, these are all listed in the Church's own Handbook.

Repeat: these are what the leaders consider to be NECESSARY living expenses (which are Tithing-Exempt).

In other words, the Handbook appears to justify us in covering all of our "necessary living expenses" before paying a dime of tithing.  Good to know!

(4)  Tithing Becomes Extortion When Exacted from Widows and the Poor
​
The architect of tithing in modern times was Lorenzo Snow.  But President Snow was not a cad, recognizing that tithing should NOT be required of those living paycheck-to-paycheck.

In a bit of subterfuge, the Correlation Department quoted President Snow in the Teachings of Lorenzo Snow study manual on tithing . . . but did they quote him accurately? 

Ummm.  Here's what we got from the Manual:

Ah, those magical ellipses.  Ellipsesgate, I call it.  Those three little dots tell us everything we need to understand about the avarice of tithing in the current regime.

As we learn from The Book of Proverbs:

   Whoever oppresses the poor
   shows contempt for their Maker.

(Proverbs 14:31, NIV)

   (5)  Joseph F. Smith 1907 Statement on Tithing.

Joseph F. Smith, the President of the Church, promised the members in General Conference in April 1907 that the day would come when we would stop paying tithing to the church. 

When will we see the fulfillment of this prophecy?

"Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. I want to live to see that day."

Today the The Church has at least $124 billion dollars invested in stocks and bonds, which generates enough income for the Church from interest (about $7 billion dollars) to cover all of the Church's budgetary needs annually.  And it also has all of the land holdings and other business enterprises. 

The Wall Street Journal quoted a member saying that paying tithing "is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money."

(6)  The Church Lost Any Divine Prerogative to Collect Tithing When it Abandoned the Law of Common Consent and Refused Financial Transparency and Accountability.

​I didn't know we could pick-and-choose which of God's laws we keep.

Isn't it revealing that of all the commandments, tithing is the one we have an annual check-up with the bishop about?  They really do want us to be paid up! 

Nevermind that tithing didn't even make the Top Ten List of Moses' Ten Commandments; nevermind that Jesus never instructed his disciples to pay tithing, but told them to liberally care for the poor anonymously, promising that our Father who seeth in secret shall reward us openly.

But fair-is-fair.  It seems like it would be fair to say the Church lost any right to collect tithing when it forsook the law of common consent (see D&C 26:2) and chose to keep its counsels and doings hidden from the membership.

I wrote a Series on this, beginning with Part 1: "Done by Common Consent."

(8)  History shows "standing laws" don't mean "forever"

Well, speaking of sore subjects, we need to talk about circumcision by way of analogy to tithing.

This is a sensitive topic, I know.  But of all the signs the Lord could have established with Abraham, here we are.

Tithing being a "standing law" unto the Church pales in comparison to the ultimate standing law of circumcision.

The whole episode is related in Genesis 17.  The Lord told Abraham:

   This is my covenant,
   which ye shall keep,
   between me and you
   and they seed after thee:
   Every man child among you
   shall be circumcised.

   He that is born in thy house
   must needs be circumcised:
   and my covenant shall be
   in your flesh for an
   everlasting covenant.

(Gen. 17:10, 13)

The important things to remember are circumcision was (1) a God-given commandment that (2) applied to every male in the household of faith and (3) was to practiced forever as an everlasting covenant. 

The penalty for not being circumcised was quite severe:

   [He that is not circumcised]
   shall be cut off from his people;
   he hath broken my covenant.

(Genesis 17:14)

  "Cut off?"  Sounds painful.

"Tradition, Tradition!"

And then the apostle Paul stumbles into Christianity on the Road to Damascus 2000 years later (who was an expert on circumcision: just ask Timothy).

Paul catches the fire of the gospel and runs from synagogue to synagogue preaching:

"Psych!  No more circumcision.  No, I'm not kidding.  Christ has done away with the lesser law.  We're free!"

It was as crazy as me running around Elders Quorum jubilantly saying:

"Psych!  No more tithing.  No, I'm not kidding.  Christ has done away with the lesser law.  We're free!"

In fact, Paul viewed it as a sign of faithlessness if a person required others to be circumcised: it showed they were stuck in their old tradition and didn't trust God's work through His Son; to them he said:

   Christ is become of no effect
   unto you.

(Galatians 5:4)

In order to get the full effect of Paul's statement and how jarring it must have sounded to his listeners, just remember that circumcision was a covenant from God that was supposed to last forever, and was the primary-identifier for spotting one of the Lord's chosen people.

How would we have responded, hearing Paul preach, "Do you believe in Christ or circumcision?  You must choose.  What's going save you at the last day?"

Well, then all hell broke loose.  Literally!

The early Church was torn apart between two opposing camps like the Israelites marshalled against the Philistines for war: (1) the Judaizers who were on Team Circumcision and (2) Paul with his gentile converts for Christ.

Where stood Peter?  Well, I'm glad you asked, because that was a bit awkward.  Peter was caught trying to play the middle.

You see, Peter got it.  He had a vision of unclean things and was told that the gospel must be preached to the gentiles, who were uncircumcised.  So his heart was in the right place.

But socially things were complicated for Peter, who was getting lots of pressure and criticism from the Judaizers who faulted him for eating with unclean, uncircumcised folk.

In Antioch it all hit the fan in spectacular fashion when Paul rebuked Peter in public for caving to the circumcision-crowd, trying to placate those who placed confidence in their tradition:

​   But when I saw
   that they walked not uprightly
   according to the truth of the gospel,
   I said unto Peter before them all,
   If thou, being a Jew, livest after
   the manner of Gentiles,
   and not as do the Jews,
   why compellest thou the Gentiles
   to live as do the Jews?

   Knowing that a man is not justified
   by the works of the law,
   but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 2:14, 16)

Lesson learned: Don't get between Christ and his servant, Paul!

Modern Revelation to the Rescue

In the Doctrine and Covenants we have an entire section dealing with the circumcision controversy in Section 74.

​   And it came to pass
   that there arose
   a great contention
   among the people . . . 
 
Well, we all know how the Lord feels about "contention."  Now imagine a "great contention" among His children.

   concerning the law
   of circumcision
   for the unbelieving husband

This unbelieving husband we're talking about was the Judaizer husband who wanted to keep the law of circumcision.  He is referred to here as "unbelieving" because his faith was in the Law as opposed to Christ.

   was desirous that his children
   should be circumcised
   and become subject to the law
   of Moses, which law was fulfilled.

What's the problem with having it both ways?  Why can't we follow Christ and also follow the law of circumcision?  

   the children, being brought up
   in subjection to the law of Moses,
   gave heed to the traditions
   of their fathers

Oh oh.  Notice the focus on "the children."  We really are in trouble if we get the rising generation off on the wrong foot. 

When we mix the gospel with our traditions, what do we create?  Ten Points to Gryffindor if you said "abominations."

   and believed not
   the gospel of Christ,
   wherein they became unholy.

I don't think the Lord could say it any more plainly: traditions make us "unholy."  Why, though?  What is so destructive about overlaying our traditions onto the gospel?

   And that wicked one cometh
   and taketh away light and truth,
   through disobedience,
   from the children of men,
   and because of the tradition
   of their fathers.

   But I have commanded you
   to bring up your children
   in light and truth.

(D&C 93:39-40)

We don't often quote that second verse, but I think it's important because the Lord is implying that when we pass along to our children our traditions we are doing them a disservice.  It is not the faith of our fathers we want to pass along but a living faith in Christ.

Continuing with circumcision:

   Their children might remain
   without circumcision;
   and the tradition
   might be done away.

I don't know about you, but if I'm going to "bring up" my children in the light and truth of the gospel then I will need to discourage them from following the traditions of their fathers which are incorrect.  

Christ is saying: Let it end here, now.

Last Sunday

On Sunday I sat in a side pew in the chapel for Sacrament Meeting.  There was a double-missionary farewell so the room was packed. 

Sitting beside me was my 15 year old daughter as the counselor in the bishopric made his announcements, including how important it was for everyone to sign up for Tithing Declaration.

I leaned over to my daughter and whispered, "I wrote a poem about that!"

"Oh?" she replied.

I handed her my phone and let her read it as the organ began to play music.
​
Tithing Declaration
a poem

 ​   And Jesus went into the temple
    and cast out all them that sold
    and bought in the temple,
    and overthrew the tables
    of the moneychangers,
    and said unto them,
    My house shall be called
    the house of prayer;
    but ye have made it
    a den of thieves.

       ― Matthew 21:12-13

Whomsoever
loves to make
a lie that will
     not die:
 
     There’s nothing
     in this world
     he says
     your money
     cannot buy.
 
But Whosoever
my words believe
they shall be born
     anew:
 
     Whose money
     can buy nothing
     here where I have
     ransomed you.

Q:  Which do you think is more important in the life of a Christian: obedience or faith?

Answer:  I guess we need to distinguish between:

   (1) Obedience to the commandments of men and their religious tradition (institutional obedience); and

   (2) Obedience to the will of God (sonship obedience).

The problem is when these two forms of obedience clash.  We see the stark difference between the two in the life of Christ.  What I find fascinating is the way the Pharisees and Sadducees accused Jesus of being disobedient.

Here was the Son of God keeping every jot and tittle of the Law of Moses but his obedience wasn't "legitimate" in their eyes because he wasn't keeping the Law their way.

Jesus had no respect for their traditions, which he in fact called wicked (see: "corban"). 

In modern terms, we see the same thing with the Word of Wisdom.  The revelation came as wise counsel, and was specifically NOT "by way of constraint."  Then the Church began creating traditions and interpretations around it.  The tradition, over time, became more important than the actual words God had given.  Now the Church enforces the tradition (through a Temple Recommend Interview) instead of the revelation itself ― which was supposed to be elective all along.  You see what a mess it has become.

People joke that Jesus would have failed a Temple Recommend Interview, but this is quite serious.  Jesus was just too busy doing the will of His Father to mind all the traditions of the elders.

So institutional obedience, as the Pharisees proved, requires very little faith, if any.  Whereas obedience to God requires quite a bit of faith because it usually goes against the grain of our traditions.

The important thing to remember is that requiring obedience to a tradition is bad.  Word of Wisdom.  Tradition.  Tithing?  Tradition.  White Shirts?  Tradition.  Deacons passing the Sacrament?  Tradition.  Baptism?  Not tradition.

Another thing to remember is that when we focus on No. 1 Obedience, we're not changing the status quo. 

Faith on the other hand is looking forward to "what can be" ― searching for a "more excellent way."  Because faith is meant to enlarge boundaries, expand our vision, elevate our spirits, believing that through Christ all things are possible.

Think of a garden plot.  If my dad asks me to weed the garden, I can obey him by removing the weeds.  And they'll grow back.  Every Saturday you'll find me out among the carrot patch on my hands and knees, pulling them out by hand.  You see, the institution requires me to weed in this particular way, which becomes over time the traditional way; we come to believe it's the only "proper" means to fulfill my father's request.  Generations pass away as we weed the garden "the right way."

Faith, on the other hand, would look at the weeds and wonder, "Is there a better way?"  I might go and buy some weed cloth at Home Depot or research organic herbicides or consider planting crops where weeds don't matter (have you ever been in a corn field?).

So when the Church talks about obedience, managing its weeds ― pay tithing, attend your meetings, don't drink coffee ― notice that none of those things asks:  What should tithing be used for?  Why go to meetings if they are unedifying?  What makes coffee bad?

You see, institutional obedience doesn't ask questions (and in fact it discourages them). 

Faith, though, is all about the questions!  Faith is asking, knocking, and seeking greater light and truth from our Father in Heaven.  

Obedience looks to the Handbook; faith looks to God.

Q:  What is the worst counsel you ever received from a Church leader?

Answer:  Probably then-Elder Nelson's article Divine Love.  It was a good example of killing the patient while trying to cure the disease.

But if we're talking about local leaders, I remember one time in law school going to Stake Conference with my roommates in the Provo Tabernacle (before it burned down). 

The Stake President stood up and told us that he wanted everyone in the Stake to display a picture of Christ in each and every room of our homes. 

That generated a lot of discussion in our apartment.  But we dutifully complied and hung a picture of Christ (do you remember those pass-along cards?) above the washing machine, the refrigerator, the couch, our beds, and in the bathroom shower (but really, the last thing the Lord needs to see is a bunch of naked hairy bums). 

Even though we were "being obedient," it made me cringe because we were treating pictures of Christ like talismans (nevermind that Ten Commandments forbid making graven images).

I suppose the Stake President was well-intentioned.  But it shows why I have little patience for institutional obedience. 

Let me explain.  Institutional obedience (No. 1 Obedience) seeks to create conformity.  But the cost is too great because we actually end up creating inequality through a caste system composed of (1) those who give the commandments and (2) those who obey them.  Whenever we structure obedience this way we invite double standards and hypocrisy (I don't know if my Stake President had a picture of Christ in his bathtub, but I doubt it).

A good example of this was when my wife was expecting another child and her due date fell on the regularly-scheduled stake baptism date.  We had an 8-year old getting baptized and asked if we could make alternative arrangements for the baptism.

We were told "no," which we took in stride.  During the baptismal service and confirmation, my wife was in labor having contractions.  She paced back and forth in the cultural hall while I timed the contractions on my watch. 

Meanwhile, my brother was serving at the time as bishop of his ward.  He also had an 8-year old and asked the Stake President if he could baptize his son in a lake in the Uinta Mountains.  Sure, he was told. 

That is why the thing that interests me is No. 2 Obedience, where we treat God as a Parent, the kind that honors the workings and will of God as it manifests in each of our lives through the gifts and power of the Holy Ghost.

I wish the Church understood that it's a big tease to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost on members and then have them spend the rest of their lives following the Prophet instead (just saying: a member of the Godhead is greater than a prophet, right?). 

The primary faith-killer is when we prioritize institutional obedience over sonship obedience, which creates Pharisees rather than disciples.

Q:  But aren't prophets leading the Church in accordance with the the Lord's will?

Answer:  Paul taught the Church should be run by the gifts of the Spirit, not by leaders.

That's how the Lord presides over the Body of Christ: not through priesthood but through the diversity of His gifts. 

This is why the Nephites were always doing things in the church "after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 6:9).

Today we think of prophets and apostles as administrators who run the Church as if it were the Ford Motor Company, with the Twelve sitting on its Board of Directors.

Well, this is the sort of thing Jacob forbids when he said we "deny the good word of Christ, and the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and quench the Holy Spirit, and make a mock[ery]" of God (Jacob 6:8) when we reject His spiritual gifts and their expression in the Church, replacing the gifts with protocol and policy.

How are we supposed to become Gods if we can't even be trusted with keys to the ward library?  How can we become like our Heavenly Parents if we aren't allowed to pick a special musical number for Sacrament Meeting without the Bishop's go-ahead?

At the beginning of this dispensation, the Lord said, "Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost" (D&C 20:60). 

Well, we can deduce that the Brethren do not really trust members to use the power of the Holy Ghost by the fact we're not allowed to use the oven in the church kitchens, or put mini-fridges in the Clerks Office, or call missionary farewells "Farewells." 

The micro-management of the membership and the codification of the Church Handbook all but guarantee no one will have any room to exercise the gifts and power of the Holy Ghost in Church.

Whenever someone says the Brethren are only doing the Lord's will, I look around and ask, "This is Lord's will?"

Q:  But aren't priesthood keys the established means by which the Lord orders His house?

Answer:  If we look in the Book of Mormon (which we're told contains the fulness of the gospel) we find a lot about the "power and authority" of God but very little about the priesthood.

In fact, the only mention of the priesthood in the entire book (!) is in regards to Alma the Younger. 

Sure, there are priests and teachers running around all over the place as early as Nephi; but priesthood?  The first time we see the word "priesthood" used is in Alma Chapter 4 in reference to the "high priesthood of the holy order of God" (Alma 4:20).  Whenever "priesthood" is used in the Book of Mormon it is always referring to this Holy Order.  

   Alma delivered up the judgment-seat
   to Nephihah, and confined himself
   wholly to the high priesthood
   of the holy order of God,
   to the testimony of the word,
   according to the spirit of revelation
   and prophecy.

(Alma 4:20)

Okay, we learn something here about what "the high priesthood of the holy order" means:

   1.  To bear "testimony of the word according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy."

Well, these are gifts of the Spirit, aren't they?

The only other time in the Book of Mormon we see any mention of priesthood is in Alma 13.  Alma says "the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God [is to] preach repentance unto his people" (Alma 13:18).

   2.  Preach repentance unto the people.

Who needs a boardroom and chauffeur and fancy keys for that?

   Melchizedek was ordained an high priest
   after the order of the covenant
   which God made with Enoch,
   It being after the order
   of the Son of God; which order came,
   not by man, nor the will of man;
   neither by father nor mother;
   neither by beginning of days
   nor end of years; but of God;

   And it was delivered unto men
   by the calling of his own voice,
   according to his own will,
   unto as many as believed
   on his name.

(JST Genesis 14:27-29)

Why Love?

Why did Jesus make it so hard?

Figuring out who his disciples are, I mean.  Why did the Lord make the standard be our love for one another?

Isn't "love" too abstract?  Wouldn't it have been easier to tell who-is-who ("Who's on the Lord side, who?") if we used something more obvious, say, like bright neon orange vests, or priesthood keys, or presidential titles or drivers licenses?

Why can't there be a Kolob-issued Amber Alert every time someone tries to invoke God's authority unrighteously?  (I hope the angels are listening and someone up there secures for me a provisional patent.)

   Love one another
   as I have loved you,
   that ye also love
   one another.

   By this shall all men know
   that ye are my disciples,
   if ye have love
   one to another.

(John 13:34-35)

Please.  Just give me an Org Chart any day of the week.  It'll show me who's on top and I'll know who to follow. 

But love?  Come on!  How am I supposed to "follow the love?" 

Really: Why Love?

In the posts I have written over the years, I've invited you to consider that Christ's gospel is really about love ― not authority.

It is a simple proposition.  And yet it changes everything.

​I have tried everything I know ― from quoting scripture to using satire and sarcasm; poems and parables; stories and wit and witlessness ― using every means available to persuade you that pulling rank is lethal to love.
 
The quickest way to ruin the gospel is to start a Church hierarchy because the first order of business will be deciding who's in charge.  

(Wasn't Christ in charge?  Oh sorry, my bad.)

Well, hold on.  If Christ were in charge, wouldn't his disciples prioritize love above all else?

Blame the Great Apostasy, I guess.  It must have left such a deep scar on our religious consciousness that we've swung too far in the opposite direction.  We go around championing our divine right like we're medieval French monarchs:

   En garde, ye Baptist! 

But really, sectarianism is so passé.  So why do so many members of the Church act like they're getting Ph.D.'s in it?

Can anyone tell me why we have made priesthood authority the central feature of our Church, even over love, just like the Catholics, when we teach the Catholics were wrong?

An Example of Divine Authority

If you ignore everything else I say, please just consider this:

Everything we need to understand about authority is demonstrated in Christ's relationship with the Father.

Heavenly Father didn't order Jesus around.  He asked, "Whom shall I send?"  He never forced Jesus to do anything.

All of the Father's authority arose from the mutual love that Jesus and the Father shared.

But here's the good news: we can get in on the action!  We can join Them in this loving union (John 17).  You see, Jesus was trying to replicate this love-dynamic with us. 

Let's see, didn't Christ tell us to obey him because he had the greatest authority?  No?  My mistake. 

Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Isn't it curious that Jesus never pulled rank on us?  Instead, he condescended to our level to show us how to love.

   He loved us first.

The Love of Men Grown Cold

Is it any wonder love has grown cold in an environment that exalts (1) obedience to authority over (2) love?

So where does divine authority come from?  How do we know who has it?  How can we get some?

Pretend for a minute, just for fun, that the following proposition were true: 

   Divine authority only arises from love.  

What would that mean?  Who would have it then?  How could we obtain it?

This would explain, of course, Joseph Smith's statement that when we try to exercise authority in the absence of love unfeigned, then we are left without any authority whatsoever (D&C 121).

That is logical because if authority is derivative of love, it could not exist where love is not found.

A Real Victory for Satan

Things got off on the wrong foot when the Catholic Church gained control of the gospel (I could make a list but Martin Luther already gave us 95 reasons; that was the original click-bait).

Well, the Catholic Fathers created a hierarchy and . . . you know the rest.

   Are we in danger of doing the same?

The first order of business was deciding who was in charge.  Who decided who got to be the Vicar of Christ?  The Great Schism occurred when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope in Rome butted heads over whose authority was supreme (no one butts heads over love, unless it's over Helen of Troy; wars are about boring things like real estate and who gets to be top dog.)

Now ask yourself, Do we really need another Holy Roman Empire?

I have observed that we are not too good at building the New Jerusalem; but we excel at building the New Rome.

But do we really want all of Rome's political and economic entanglements, with its Crusades and Prop 8's and German Princes and Beneficial Life Insurance Companies and Cathedrals and City Creek stores and reflecting pools that allow us to admire our pride from above and beneath?

Then came the Protestant Reformation, challenging the Catholic Church's authority.

The Reformers settled on a doctrine of Sola Scriptura ("By Scripture Alone"), which they based their authority upon.  You've probably heard of it: a Bible, a Bible, we have a Bible. 

But what's shocking is that everyone got it wrong.

I mean, who can believe that a 14 year old farm boy figured out what has stumped Christian theologians and the professors of religion for millennia?

Joseph Smith appears on the scene and eats their creeds for breakfast as if they're Cornflakes.  He rejects priesthood as a means to exercise dominion (Catholic way); and Joseph rejected authority from the Bible (Protestant way). 

Instead, Joseph went back to the primitive Church, "How about we try it Christ's way; you know, where Christ taught authority comes from the way we treat each other?" 

   No power or influence
   can or ought to be maintained
   by virtue of the priesthood.
   [Full Stop]

So where does power and influence come from?

   Only [ONLY?] by persuasion,
   by long-suffering, by gentleness
   and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
   by kindness, and pure knowledge.

(D&C 121:41-42)

Based on this, I wonder if we should reframe the Priesthood Restoration narrative to be less about angelic ministrants and keys and offices, and more about love and sacrifice and condescension.

   But he that is greatest among you
   shall be your servant.

   And whosoever shall exalt himself
   shall be abased; and he that shall
   humble himself shall be exalted.

(Matt. 23:11-12)

How else could it be?

Coca-Cola Cannot Love

I'm sorry to break this to all the corporate marketers out there, but divine authority cannot reside in trusts, corporations, churches, governments or the Society for the Preservation of Pink Poodles.​

Why?  Because legal entities cannot love. 

Only people can love; and only disciples of Christ can love with divine charity, which is a gift of the Spirit. 

(Corporations don't get spiritual gifts and neither do governments; they belong to the people, people!)

   Pray unto the Father
   with all the energy of heart,
   that ye may be filled with this love,
   which he hath bestowed
   upon all who are true followers
   of his Son, Jesus Christ;
   that ye may become the sons of God.

(Moroni 7:48)

We see here that divine authority is "bestowed" by God as an endowment of love (in which dwells the power) upon the "true followers of his Son."

Coca-Cola Can Exert Authority

So where do corporations and governments and religion get their authority? 

Great question!  Their authority is bestowed by Babylon the Great, which is a type and shadow of the world.

Anyone can access Babylon's kind of authority, if they have enough money or armies or navies or citizens or slaves:

   And the angel said unto me:
   Come hither; I will shew unto thee
   the judgment of the great whore
   that sitteth upon many waters:

   With whom the kings of the earth
   have committed fornication,
   and the inhabitants of the earth
   have been made drunk
   with the wine of her fornication.

   And I saw a woman arrayed in purple
   and decked with gold
   and precious stones and pearls,
   having a golden cup in her hand
   full of abominations and filthiness:

   And upon her forehead was a name
   written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
   THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
   AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

(Revelation 17:1-5)

Babylon's authority derives from control, fear, guilt, power, pride, wealth, pressure, media, secret combinations, inequality, and the blood of the saints.

(Notice that all those things are the opposites of love.) 

This is why Babylon is described as a Harlot: because her "authority" is transactional and can be trafficked, bought and sold with gold and silver.

This is what the poem, Chastity for Churches, is about.

Chastity for Churches

​The congress of bodies
making love has an unusual
way of crossing interstate
lines. The power to tax
is the power to destroy
what is most holy.
​
The windows of hell
open for the widow
whose dowry is devoured
by the oldest profession
of Nehor.  Eternal revenue
services the treasured
Mystery-of-the-Bed:

               You can skip
               the wedding supper
               and exchange
               money instead.​

How Do You Run a Church with . . . Love?

This is all impractical, of course.  Who ever heard of running an organization with love?  It is terribly inefficient. 

And the pay is lousy.

Remember, though, that the well-oiled authority of Caesar and Pilate and Caiaphas did not come from Jesus; their authority was not part of Christ's kingdom (which is not of this world).

So there we have it: we get to choose between the authority of Babylon, which comes fully loaded with all the bells-and-whistles, and the authority of the Kingdom of God, which is a total clunker. 

Before you choose, be aware only one of them has bank accounts and stock portfolios.

Did you pick the stock options and bonds?  Good.  So did the Church.

​But everything I am saying was said by the apostle Paul thousands of years ago in 1 Corinthians 13.

Though I speak with the tongue of men and angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.

Paul is pointing out that we can say whatever; we can talk a good game and use all the right terminology, telling people how much we love them . . . but if we don't actually walk-the-walk of charity, we're just noise. 

All our authority is for naught.

Though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge and though I have all faith to move mountains and have not charity, I am nothing.

Here he's saying we can follow the prophets (the gift of prophecy) and study the Come Follow Me manual (knowledge) and have faith to move mountains (*insert* latest Church Newsroom Press Release patting itself on the back), but if we aren't filled with charity, it's all just chaff.

All our authority is for naught.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

All of our "good works" and Helping Hands and humanitarian efforts mean squat if we aren't animated by the pure love of Christ, being precious to one another.  

I think of the example of Lavina Fielding Anderson.  She was one of the September Six who was excommunicated for publishing a scholarly article in Dialogue about the Strengthening Church Members Committee.  You can read her article here.

Sister Anderson got in trouble for naming by name some of the Brethren who were behaving badly.

After her excommunication, she continued to attend her local ward faithfully for 25 years.  Her bishop and stake president petitioned the First Presidency for her reinstatement.

The First Presidency (Presidents Nelson, Oaks, and Eyring) rejected her request for rebaptism in 2019.

Why?  Well, as President Packer liked to say, the Brethren have loooooong memories.

After 25 years (!), the First Presidency still had not forgiven her for the things she wrote in that article. 

The First Presidency sent a form letter through the proper priesthood channels, summarily rejecting her request for rebaptism.  No explanation was given.

Lavina said after her rejection, "I was not surprised or angry about the outcome.  I have kept my covenants, remained close to the church and have felt that what I have done is accepted by the Lord," she said. "If there is unfinished business, it’s the First Presidency’s, not mine."

Hierarcies Abound; Authority Not So Much

Despite the Lord's call to love one another and to be equal in earthly and heavenly things (D&C 78:5-7), hierarchies yet abound.

As a father I have trouble teaching my children to share.  I can only imagine how our Heavenly Father must feel trying to get his children to share "authority" in the Body of Christ so we can become "one."

Honestly, I never thought I would convince anyone with cunning arguments or my own intelligence, flawed as it is.  No, I believed if I pointed others to Christ, who is meek and lowly, then they would come to know Him and his Spirit, which is the Spirit of love and liberty.
 
But now I see how naïve I have been.  The temptations of the Great and Spacious Building, with all its amenities, are too great. 

We have chosen the Spirit of authority over the Spirit of love. 

I would just like to point out that it was in the Spirit of authority that the Sadducees sat in judgment of Christ himself.

Conclusion
 
If God is love, and if charity is the pure love of Christ, then anything that is unloving is by definition Anti-Christ.
 
Do you agree with that statement?  Is my reasoning faulty?  Are there times when we should be uncharitable?

​But if that statement is true, then:

   -  Inequality is Anti-Christ.
   -  Status systems are Anti-Christ.
   -  Hierarchies are Anti-Christ.
   -  Control and compulsion are Anti-Christ.
   -  The General Handbook is Anti-Christ.
 
Has the Church itself become Anti-Christ in its pursuit of vanity, reputation, and wealth at the expense of love?

I cannot say; I see but through a glass darkly. 

But my heart whispers, "Follow Christ where the love leads."

The Exodus Trilogy

Wasn't it great how George Lucas began his Star Wars Trilogy with Episodes 4-6?

He just threw us into the middle of an ongoing family saga with no backstory and no idea how it was all going to end.

   Just like life, right?

In 2019 I began Owl of the Desert to share with you the Exodus Trilogy, a series of poems that I believe reflect the current climate of modern religion and of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular.

   Fleeing Egypt (2019 - 2020)
   Ascending Sinai (2020 - 2021)
   Promised Land (2021 - 2022)

Well, I've finished.  I accomplished what I set out to do.  In those poems I recorded my innermost spiritual yearnings.  I published them because that is what the Spirit asked of me. 

I can say with Mormon (who said it best):

   And I [did] this for a wise purpose;
   for thus it whispereth me,
   according to the workings
   of the Spirit of the Lord
   which is in me.

   And now, I do not know all things;
   but the Lord knoweth all things
   which are to come; wherefore,
   he worketh in me
   to do according to his will.

   And my prayer to God
   is concerning my brethren,
   that they may once again
   come to the knowledge of God,
   yea, the redemption of Christ;
   that they may once again
   be a delightsome people.

(Words of Mormon 1:7-8)

As mentioned in Part 6 of "Would God That All the Lord's People Were Prophets," I was writing primarily for the Lord and his angels (who can always use a good laugh).  But I hope they've meant something to you, too.

   So what now?

No Mastermind At Work Here

Well, it won't surprise anyone that I am no mastermind; I spend most of my brain cells wondering what's for lunch.  

I admit I wake up each day pretty clueless.  Then I say my prayers and ask the Lord, "What do we have going on today?" 

Most of the time I am like Nephi trying to be "led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do" (1 Nephi 4:6).

So now that the Exodus Trilogy is done do I clock out?  Am I done?  Is the Lord satisfied with my work?  (In my defense, He knew my ability ― or lack thereof ― when I started.)

   You get what you pay for.

Build an Ark (or Barge, Whatever)

In Sunday School last week, a friend made a comment I could relate to:

"In the scriptures," he said, "the Lord's instructions to his prophets seem so clear.  Do this.  Go there.  Build an ark.  But it's not as easy figuring out what he wants me to do in the moment."

It made me reflect on why it is that faith often thrives in an environment of uncertainty; why faith flourishes in the dark as we grasp our way forward without the aid of sight or knowledge.

   Faith is things which are hoped for
   and not seen;
   wherefore, dispute not
   because ye see not,
   for ye receive no witness
   until after the trial
   of your faith.

(Ether 12:6)

Something I've learned from Moroni's writings is faith needs an anchor.  But what does Moroni mean when he says faith and hope "maketh an anchor" to our souls?

   Whoso believeth in God
   might with surety hope
   for a better world,
   yea, even a place
   at the right hand of God,
   which hope cometh of faith,
   maketh an anchor
   to the souls of men.

(Ether 12:4)

Is Moroni using the right analogy here?  I thought faith was supposed to move us along the path, but don't anchors keep us fixed in the same place?

How are Faith and Hope in Christ "Anchors" to our Souls?

   Q.  Which direction do anchors go? 

   A.  Anchors always sink when we throw them overboard.  It's sort of the point.  An anchor that floats is no help.

If we're in a pirate ship and the captain tells us to deploy the anchor, gravity is going to pull the anchor down to the bottom of the seabed, keeping the ship anchored while the winds and waves toss it to and fro.

   Q.  Do you see yourself on the deck of the ship or at the bottom of the sea floor with the anchor?

   A.  Good point.  Forget the ship for a minute.  Let's presume we're all at the bottom of the seabed of God's kingdoms, in the telestial world.  We'll call this murky, seaweed-infested dark place "hell."  Our jailor, Satan, is keeping good watch over us, sleeping with the fishes.

   Q.  How is Christ like an "anchor?"

   A.  Here's the important thing to remember: an anchor is NO GOOD unless it is attached to a rope or chain.  Like an anchor, Christ condescended (sunk) so we might ascend, but it only worked because he was connected to the Father.

   Q.  How does an anchor help us?

   A.  Do we climb up the rope?  The rope is "straight," after all, because it is held taut between Christ and the Father.  The straight and narrow way is vertical not horizontal.

I love Moroni's analogy of the anchor because of how it flavors these words spoken by Christ:

   And my Father sent me
   that I might be lifted up
   upon the cross;
   and after that I had been lifted up
   upon the cross,
   that I might draw all men unto me,
   that as I have been lifted up by men
   even so should men be lifted up
   by the Father.

(3 Nephi 27:14)

Presidential Fitness Award

The point I want to make is our climb up the Covenant Path (sorry, I couldn't resist) is not like we're in high school P.E. class climbing a rope. 

If you saw my biceps, you'd see I have no upper body strength.  If I had to climb the anchor chain to Christ, as though Christ were on deck waiting for me, it would be hopeless.

But it's not hopeless because all we have to do is "hold on" to the anchor (which represents our faith in Christ) and the Father "draws" us up.

See that?  We don't climb by our own strength.

All the strength we have is for wrapping our arms around Him.  The Father hoists us up out of this abyss by His strength.

So what does this have to do with Owl of the Desert?

Stations of the Cross

An anchor is shaped like a cross, isn't it?

Anticipating the completion of the Exodus Trilogy, I assumed I would have some Shore Leave saved up.

   Last week that changed.  

It looks like shore leave is postponed.

I'd like to announce the next chapter of Owl of the Desert:

   The Seven Stations of the Cross.

I know that tradition lists more than seven stations along the Via Dolorosa.  But there's something nice and complete and perfect about the No. 7.  

I've left more unsaid than I've said, and so I have organized my next project, chronicling our walk with God on our premortal to post-mortal journey, around the symbolically significant stations of the cross that Christ walked on his way to Golgotha.

As the prototype of the Saved Man, we might consider our own walk towards death and attaining unto the resurrection dead.

    First Station of the Cross: Jesus Condemned to Die.

   Second Station of the Cross:  Jesus Stumbles and Falls.

   Third Station of the Cross:  Simon of Cyrene is Made to Bear the Cross.

   Fourth Station of the Cross:  The Women of Jerusalem Weep.

   Fifth Station of the Cross:  Jesus is Stripped of His Garment.

   Sixth Station of the Cross:  Jesus Nailed to the Cross.

   Seventh Station of the Cross:  Burial and Resurrection.

I'm glad to have you along for the ride.

Falling Apart in my 30s

People joke that our bodies begin falling apart in our 40s.  Well, I must be an overachiever because my body started going haywire a decade earlier.

It was 2016 to be precise. 

My hands were going numb.  I was losing sensation in my fingertips (you've heard of butterfingers?  That was me, but double-the-butter).

I figured I had neuropathy or carpal tunnel syndrome.  I slept with braces on my wrists, tried to reduce inflammation, underwent electrical-current testing, saw M.D.'s and natural healers (I don't discriminate) and prayed like the dickens. 

In other words, I did what most people do when they freak out.  

   I feared the worst. 

I envisioned my hands becoming useless and having to use voice-to-text technology like Stephen Hawking.

Higher Power

I asked Clark Burt for a priesthood blessing. 

We were serving together in the Stake Sunday School presidency. 

Clark asked me if I had faith to be healed.  

   And again, to some it is given
   to have faith to be healed.

(D&C 46:19)

Sure I had faith, I thought.  The Lord said in D&C 42 that if I have faith to be healed (and if it wasn't my time to die), then I shall be healed.

   He that hath faith in me to be healed,
   and is not appointed unto death,
   shall be healed.

(D&C 42:48)

Notice it says "shall," not "may." 

Assuming I had a few good years left, and believing all things are possible, I believed the Lord would heal me of my neurodegenerative issue or whatever it was, as simply as he had healed the lepers of their leprosy.

Is anything too hard for the Lord?

So I answered, "Yes.  But do you have the faith to heal me?"

   And to others it is given
   to have faith to heal.

(D&C 46:20)

Surely between the two of us we could muster the faith of a mustard seed, right?

Clean Hands, Pure Heart

Clark wasn't worried about my hands.  He was worried about my soul. 

"The greatest part of our energy in this life is spent endeavoring to rid ourselves of discomfort," he once said.  "But God did not promise us comfort but to send us a Comforter.  The irony is He makes us uncomfortable with our sin.  One master sin is at the root of all the rest.  It is the non-recognition by us ― and the consequent inactivity in us.  It is the absence of our being in harmony with our Father and His Son.  The Lord cannot save us from our sins while we hold on to them.  So let go.  Open your fists and let the Lord put His mark in the palm of your hands."

   He who hath faith
   to see shall see.
   He who hath faith
   to hear shall hear.
   The lame who hath faith
   to leap shall leap.

(D&C 42:49-51)

Where I Cut My Wrists

Clark's blessing gave me confidence and bolstered my faith, but I decided it would still be prudent to operate (not from a lack of faith, but in a doing-my-part sort of way).

My orthopedic surgeon came highly recommended; after my consultation I ran into him at the American Fork Temple, where he was a temple worker.  

   So that was a good sign.

The first time he performed bilateral carpal tunnel surgery on me (you heard me right, first time), he cut into my wrists and enlarged the canal that protects the nerve going from our neck down our arms into our hands.

In Post-Op, the doctor visited me after I woke up from the anesthesia and wiped sweat from his brow.  "It kicked my butt," he said (that's the closest to swearing a Temple Worker gets).

It had taken him 4 times longer than normal because my wrists were in such bad shape.  For reasons unknown, underneath my skin is a wonderland of thick scar tissue.

Back at home, recuperating with my wrists and hands wrapped in bandages, I was barely able to text Clark an update.  "I am doing well but am very sore.  It's okay: I can still work the TV remote," I wrote after the surgery.

He texted back, "I am glad it went well.  And if you can hold a remote you can hold your scriptures."

Now there's a man who takes his gospel study seriously!

"More Painful than Childbirth"

A couple months later I felt sick to my stomach.  The pain increased and I wondered if I had appendicitis.  They say to never Google your symptoms because you'll think it's terminal.

I was sure I was dying.

It was the middle of the night and I woke my wife up, telling her I was going to drive myself to the hospital.  She wanted to take me, but we had young toddlers and no one to stay with them, so I told her I'd be fine.

I wasn't fine.

It was probably the stupidest thing I've ever done, driving while in so much pain, but thankfully I didn't hurt anyone (and an ambulance ride would have cost thousands of dollars!).  

I stumbled into the Emergency Room and the nurse took one look at me and knew exactly what it was.

"Honey, you got kidney stones."

"Umm, not that I know of," I said.

A CT scan revealed an 11 mm stone (they call it a "stone," but these aren't like smooth river rocks; if you look at them in a microscope they are jagged crystals with a million spikes that pierce your ureter between the kidneys and bladder).

So, I had my first stone (yes, you heard me right: first stone.  It gets easier once you know what's happening.  Maybe someday I'll tell you about passing one in the bathroom at work after telling the Judge in chambers at the beginning of a jury trial that if I made any odd noises or gestures during the trial, it was because I had a stone stuck in my ureter).

The nurse told me she had stones, too, and it was more painful than childbirth (a detail I delight in repeating to my wife at every opportunity).

There's a procedure where they electroshock the stone with sound waves, bursting it into little pieces of sharp sand that can pass through . . . you know.

Clark brought me some homemade bread before the procedure.  The risks weren't great, but it bruises your kidneys, and you never know.

I accepted the bread thankfully.  "What's this?" I said, referring to some papers he passed to me with the bread.

"Something I wrote that I think you should read," Clark said. 

I looked at the title of a multiple-page essay called, "Saved From Our Sins." 

Well, I packed the essay in my hospital bag, for some easy reading.  The day of the surgery, while I was being prepped for anesthesia, I read it.  

The anesthesiologist came in.  "Mr. Merrill, are you ready?" 

He meant was I ready to go to sleep.  But in the back of my mind, one wonders, what if there are complications and this is it?  What if this is my last day on earth?

I put Clarks' paper down and smiled.  "As ready as I'll ever be."

Put Your Trust in God

One of Clark's favorite scriptures to quote is from Romans Chapter 1. 

Like the apostle Paul, Clark always warned me not to put my trust in men.  He always pointed me to Christ and His holy word.

   Professing themselves to be wise,
   they became fools,
   and changed the glory
   of the uncorruptible God
   into an image made like
   to corruptible man.
   Who changed the truth
   of God into a lie,
   and worshipped and served
   the creature more than the Creator.

(Romans 1:21-23, 25)

I had never read this scripture as being about prophets or living idols, always interpreting "creature" to be the natural man or carved wood or something.  But re-read this scripture.  

What better definition for "Anti-Christ" than when we "change the glory of God into an image like a man," as we do when we worship our leaders?

Do we turn the gospel "of God into a lie" when we serve those in authority above our Creator?

And so the greatest lesson Clark taught me was this:

We shouldn't put our trust in men, because our trust is in God alone.  But in men we put our love; we pour our hearts into one another, never-ending.

   I know in whom I have trusted.
   My God hath been my support;
   he hath led me through
   mine afflictions in the wilderness;
   He hath filled me with his love.

(2 Nephi 4:19-21)

One of the greatest things in life is to be loved by someone who truly trusts God, because their love is not their own but is a gift from God.

The Last Charge Meeting

What was the "last charge" meeting?  And why was it so important to the question of "authority" in the Church?

When friends and family tell me the Church has divine "authority," they mean they believe priesthood keys have been passed down the generations in a line unbroken, from prophet to prophet.

Those who hold this view believe that authority is "fungible" (meaning a commodity that can be transferred) like a rock that passes hands.  You can trace the hands that have held that rock, and you can create rules for it, such as: only one pair of hands can hold it at a time . . . 

   You get the idea.

I want to begin by letting the Church speak for itself, so you may know (1) what is officially claimed; and (2) that I am not making this stuff up.

Here's what the Church teaches in its correlated manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, page 529:

"Knowing his mortal ministry would soon come to a close, the Prophet met frequently with members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to instruct them and to give them the priesthood keys necessary to govern the Church.

"These preparations culminated in a meeting with the Apostles and a few other close associates in March 1844. In this extraordinary council, the Prophet charged the Twelve to govern the Church after his death, explaining that he had conferred upon them all the ordinances, authority, and keys necessary to do so. 'I roll the burden and responsibility of leading this church off from my shoulders on to yours,' he declared. 'Now, round up your shoulders and stand under it like men; for the Lord is going to let me rest awhile.'"

There you have it.  But is that what really happened?

The Story Grows Legs and Sprouts Wings
​
There are no contemporaneous sources that record Joseph giving the Twelve Apostles any authority to govern the Church in its organized Stakes, let alone in this "extraordinary council" held on March 26, 1844.

Historians call it "the Last Charge" meeting, when Joseph bestowed his keys and authority on the Twelve.

The premise itself is odd because in Joseph's lifetime we find:

   "the Twelve Apostles
   had jurisdictional authority
   only OUTSIDE of Zion
   and the organized stakes."

(Joseph Smith Papers, Journals Vol. 1, Introduction.)

It was understood by everyone and their corn dodgers that the Twelve had NO authority in Zion where there were high councils. 

The Twelve were supposed to be abroad preaching the word as special witnesses.  The scriptures give them no administrative powers at all in the Stakes of Zion.

That's why they're called the "traveling high council" in D&C 107: because that's all they were, a roaming group of wonderful gypsies who were to leave purse and scrip behind and declare the Good News in foreign lands.

   President Joseph Smith
   then stated that 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.

(History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 220)

Joseph never dreamt of calling a member of the Twelve into the First Presidency.  They're separate quorums, for heaven's sakes! 

And D&C 107 required a member of the First Presidency to be a high priest; whereas apostles are elders (hence, we address them by that title: "Elder Bednar").

So how in the world did the Twelve obtain management and governance over the entire Church?

Well, that's the problem the Last Charge meeting is all about fixing!

Encyclopedia of Mormonism to the Rescue

If you pull the Encyclopedia of Mormonism off the shelf and dust it off, you'll find these same claims about the Twelve getting their authority from Joseph at the Last Charge Meeting.

"About March 26, 1844, Joseph Smith made his 'last charge' to the Twelve. He declared that he had now given them every priesthood key that he possessed and that it was their responsibility to shoulder the burden of the kingdom while he rested."

(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, History of the Church: 1831-1844)

So we can see that by the latter part of the Twentieth Century the narrative had fully metastasized. 

Let's see if we can summarize the main points:

   1.  Joseph Smith, over an undefined period of time in Nauvoo, was meeting with the Twelve, even though the Twelve weren't around Nauvoo much since they were serving missions and electioneering; and

   2.  Joseph gave the Twelve priesthood keys even though he had publicly taught they had no authority in the organized stakes of Zion, and despite the fact that all his focus was on the Council of Fifty and running for president of the United States; and

   3.  Joseph's conferral of priesthood keys upon the Twelve culminated on March 26, 1844 at the Last Charge meeting; and (here's the kicker)

   4.  There's no record of any of this ever happening.

Yikes!  If I had defended a college term paper so poorly supported by the historical record, I think my professors would have given me a Failing Grade.   

So how did this story become the official narrative, when it went against everything Joseph had done in organizing the priesthood again on earth?

Well, in the 1850s some of these problematic accounts made their way into the official Manuscript History of the Church (now I wonder how that happened), and from there the legend grew and grew. ​

​(See, John Dinger, "The Council of Fifty, Orson Hyde, and the Last Charge Meeting," The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Fall/Winter 2017), pp. 62-82.)

What Really Happened on March 26, 1844?

​Historians agree on one thing, which everyone is certain about: whatever happened on March 26, 1844 happened in a meeting of the Council of Fifty. 

(See, Andrew Ehat, Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1981.)

That is critically important to understand because anything Joseph said or did on March 26, 1844 ― and any authority Joseph purportedly conferred ― was to the brethren in the Council of Fifty.

Not the apostles.

Don't misunderstand: there were members of the Twelve who were also members of the Council of Fifty, but any "keys" that were delivered were addressed to the members of the Council of Fifty (more formally called "The Kingdom of God and his Laws, with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgement in the Hands of his Servants").

I mean, just look at the full name!  The Council of Fifty had "KEYS AND POWER THEREOF" right there in its name.

So who were the members of the Council of Fifty?  Who received this "last charge" from the Prophet?  Spoiler alert: there were a lot more than just 12:

• Adams, George Washington Joshua (7 Nov. 1810–11 May 1880)
• Babbitt, Almon Whiting (Oct. 1812–Sept. 1856)
• Badlam, Alexander, Sr. (28 Nov. 1808–30 Nov./1 Dec. 1894)
• Bent, Samuel (19 July 1778–16 Aug. 1846)
• Bernhisel, John Milton (23 June 1799–28 Sept. 1881)
• Bonney, Edward William (26 Aug. 1807–4 Feb. 1864)
• Brown, Uriah (9 May 1784–22 Mar. 1853)
• Cahoon, Reynolds (30 Apr. 1790–29 Apr. 1861)
• Carrington, Albert (8 Jan. 1813–19 Sept. 1889)
• Clayton, William (17 July 1814–4 Dec. 1879)
• Coolidge, Joseph Wellington (31 May 1814–13 Jan. 1871)
• Cutler, Alpheus (29 Feb. 1784–10 June 1864)
• Dana (Denna), Lewis (1 Jan. 1805–8 June 1885)
• Daniels, Cyrus (12 Sept. 1803–before May 1847)
• Dunham, Jonathan (14 Jan. 1800–28 July 1845)
• Eaton, Merinus G. (22 Mar. 1812–?)
• Emmett, James (22 Feb. 1803–28 Dec. 1852)
• Farnham, John W. (5/15 Dec. 1794–16 Aug. 1846)
• Fielding, Amos (16 July 1792–5 Aug. 1875)
• Fielding, Joseph (26 Mar. 1797–19 Dec. 1863)
• Foster, Lucian Rose (12 Nov. 1806–19 Mar. 1876)
• Fullmer, David (7 July 1803–21 Oct. 1879)
• Fullmer, John Solomon (21 July 1807–8 Oct. 1883)
• Grant, George Davis (10 Sept. 1812–20 Sept. 1876)
• Grant, Jedediah Morgan (21 Feb. 1816–1 Dec. 1856)
• Greene, John Portineus (3 Sept. 1793–10 Sept. 1844)
• Haws, Peter (17 Feb. 1796–1862)
• Heywood, Joseph L. (1 Aug. 1815–16 Oct. 1910)
• Hollister, David Sprague (4 June 1808–after 3 Oct. 1851)
• Hyde, Orson (8 Jan. 1805–28 Nov. 1878)
• James, Samuel (18 Jan. 1806–after 1880)
• Johnson, Benjamin F. (28 July 1818–18 Nov. 1905)
• Kimball, Heber Chase (14 June 1801–22 June 1868)
• Lee, John Doyle (6 Sept. 1812–23 Mar. 1877)
• Lewis, Philip Bessom (16 Jan. 1804–13 Nov. 1877)
• Lott, Cornelius Peter (27 Sept. 1798–6 July 1850)
• Lyman, Amasa Mason (30 Mar. 1813–4 Feb. 1877)
• Marks, William (15 Nov. 1792–22 May 1872)
• Miller, George (25 Nov. 1794–after July 1856)
• Miller, Henry William (1 May 1807–9 Oct. 1885)
• Morley, Isaac (11 Mar. 1786–24 June 1865)
• Pack, John (20 May 1809–4 Apr. 1885)
• Page, John Edward (25 Feb. 1799–14 Oct. 1867)
• Parker, John Davis (22 Nov. 1799–26 Feb. 1891)
• Phelps, William Wines (17 Feb. 1792–7 Mar. 1872)
• Pratt, Orson (19 Sept. 1811–3 Oct. 1881)
• Pratt, Parley Parker (12 Apr. 1807–13 May 1857)
• Rich, Charles Coulson (21 Aug. 1809–17 Nov. 1883)
• Richards, Levi (14 Apr. 1799–18 June 1876)
• Richards, Willard (24 June 1804–11 Mar. 1854)
• Rigdon, Sidney (19 Feb. 1793–14 July 1876)
• Rockwell, Orrin Porter (June 1814–9 June 1878)
• Rockwood, Albert Perry (9 June 1805–25 Nov. 1879)
• Roundy, Shadrach (1 Jan. 1789–4 July 1872)
• Shumway, Charles (2 Aug. 1806–21 May 1898)
• Smith, Elias (6 Sept. 1804–24 June 1888)
• Smith, George Albert (26 June 1817–1 Sept. 1875)
• Smith, Hyrum (9 Feb. 1800–27 June 1844)
• Smith, John (16 July 1781–23 May 1854)
• Smith, Joseph (23 Dec. 1805–27 June 1844)
• Smith, William B. (13 Mar. 1811–13 Nov. 1893)
• Snow, Erastus (9 Nov. 1818–27 May 1888)
• Spencer, Daniel (20 July 1794–8 Dec. 1868)
• Spencer, Orson (14 Mar./13 May 1802–15 Oct. 1855)
• Taylor, John (1 Nov. 1808–25 July 1887)
• Thayer, Ezra (14 Oct. 1791–6 Sept. 1862)
• Turley, Theodore (10 Apr. 1801–12 Aug. 1871)
• Wasson, Lorenzo D. (1819–28 July 1857)
• Whitney, Newel Kimball (3/5 Feb. 1795–23 Sept. 1850)
• Wight, Lyman (9 May 1796–31 Mar. 1858)
• Woodruff, Wilford (1 Mar. 1807–2 Sept. 1898)
• Woodworth, Lucien (3 Apr. 1799–after 1860)
• Yearsley, David D. (3 Mar. 1808–Oct. 1849)
• Young, Brigham (1 June 1801–29 Aug. 1877)
• Young, Joseph (7 Apr. 1797–16 July 1881)
• Young, Phineas Howe (16 Feb. 1799–10 Oct. 1879)

Let's Ask Richard Holzapfel

Having had some minor interactions with Brother Richard Hozapfel, I can vouch that he is a good guy.  He's an expert in LDS Church History.  He's a professional historian (got a PhD and everything) and was employed as a professor at BYU in the Church History and Doctrine department.  Now he serves as an Area Seventy. 

He's written extensively on this topic.

So what evidence, do you think, would the Church's best-and-brightest have to support the Church's claims about the Last Charge meeting? 

Let's have Brother Holzapfel spell it out for us in his own words:

"This important gathering, known as the 'Last Charge' meeting, was a particularly significant and far-reaching event for which no contemporary minutes have been discovered."

(Richard Holzapfel, in Banner of the Gospel: Wilford Woodruff, ed. Alexander L. Baugh and Susan Easton Black (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 327–64.)

Re-read that last part, please.  There's no "contemporary" evidence.  Ooookay. 

So where did the story come from?  

   (1)  Wilford Woodruff's 1897 Testimony (54 years later)

President Wilford Woodruff in 1897 gave a special testimony, recollecting this moment in Church history:

"Upon one occasion [Joseph] stood upon his feet in our midst for nearly three hours declaring unto us the great and last dispensation which God had set His hand to perform upon the earth in these last days. The room was filled as if with consuming fire; the Prophet was clothed upon with much of the power of God, and his face shone and was transparently clear, and he closed that speech, never-to-be-forgotten in time or in eternity, with the following language:

"'Brethren, I have had great sorrow of heart for fear that I might be taken from the earth with the keys of the Kingdom of God upon me, without sealing them upon the heads of other men. God has sealed upon my head all the keys of the Kingdom of God necessary for organizing and building up of the Church, Zion, and Kingdom of God upon the earth, and to prepare the Saints for the coming of the Son of Man.

"'Now, brethren, I thank God I have lived to see the day that I have been enabled to give you your endowments, and I have now sealed upon your heads all the powers of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods and Apostleship, with all the keys and powers thereof, which God has sealed upon me; and I now roll off all the labor, burden and care of this Church and Kingdom of God upon your shoulders, and I now command you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to round up your shoulders, and bear off this Church and Kingdom of God before heaven and earth, and before God, angels and men; and if you don’t do it you will be damned.'

"And the same spirit that filled the room at that time burns in my bosom while I record this testimony, and the Prophet of God appointed no one else but the Twelve Apostles to stand at the head of the Church and direct its affairs."

(Richard Holzapfel, "The Prophet's Final Charge to the Twelve," in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 495–524.)

But What Did Wilford Woodruff Record at the Time?

Now compare and contrast the above account (which President Woodruff read from a prepared statement half a century after-the-fact) with what his personal journal recorded for March 26, 1844:​

(2)  Wilford Woodruff's Journal Entry for March 26, 1844

"March 26, 1844. A rainy day. I met in council with the brethren."

Uh . . . Elder Woodruff took time to comment on the weather in his journal, but not on the most important event in the history of Church government?

I mean, ask yourself: Why was there a succession crisis at all after the Prophet's death if 50 men could attest that Joseph had directed the Twelve to take over the affairs of the kingdom?

Maybe now we'll begin to understand why none of the Smith family came West (except the Fielding line, of course; although that lineage was purged from leadership in 1979).

(3)  Joseph Smith's Journal for March 26, 1844

What about Joseph Smith's journal?  Did the Last Charge Meeting ― that "never-to-be-forgotten in time and in eternity" moment ― make the cut?

     Tuesday Ma[r]ch 26— 1844
     fr[o]m 9. to 12. in council
     from. 2 to 5 P.M. in coun[c]il―
     warm some wet

(Journal Entry, March 26, 1844, Joseph Smith Papers)

Uhh.  There's the weather again.

​We need to remember something here.  Joseph Smith taught that if something isn't recorded, then it's not binding and is not honored by heaven.

   Whatsoever you do not record
   on earth shall not be recorded
   in heaven;
   
   It may seem to some to be a very
   bold doctrine that we talk of―​

   Whatsoever those men did
   in authority . . . 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.
​
(D&C 128:8-9)

There is no "proper and faithful record" of Joseph conferring keys to govern the Church to the Twelve in the organized Stakes.  Ever.

This is a faithful saying.  Who can hear it?

(4)  Minutes for March 26, 1844 for Council of Fifty

Well, let's cut to the chase and go directly to the best source of all: the actual minutes of the Council of Fifty for March 26, 1844.

Certainly if Joseph had done something as momentous as alter the government of the Church and establish a new, novel means of succession after his death, it would have merited being mentioned in the minutes, right?

And we have them!  If you wish to read the minutes yourself, you may find them here.

Here's what happened that day:

IN THE MORNING SESSION:

   1.  Previous minutes were read.
   2.  Several new members were admitted.
   3.  Joseph "gave some instructions pertaining to the kingdom of God."
   4.  The brethren threw shade at William Law.
   5.  Joseph "continued his instructions on heavenly things and many other important subjects."
   6.  They drafted a memorial to send to the United States Congress regarding immigration and other political issues.

IN THE AFTERNOON SESSION:

   1.  Approved the morning minutes.
   2.  Workshopped the Memorial, arguing over whether they should use the words "Be it enacted" or "Be it ordained."
   3.  Joseph suggested sending missionaries to France (Viva la France!).
   4.  Elders Hyde and Clayton talked about building up the Kingdom and sending a proclamation to the kings of the earth.
   5.  Sidney Rigdon addressed the council "on the subject of the kingdom of God.  He entered into the subject in a most spirited and animated manner, showing the glory and joy which will exist when God reigns over the nations."  (Maybe it was Sidney's countenance that "shone transparently clear" in the power of God that Wilford Woodruff remembered 50 years later?)
   6.   Joseph answered Elder Babbit's questions pertaining to the kingdom of God.
   7.  They adjourned.
 
There you have it.

Nothing about the Twelve.  Nothing about keys.

(5)  "Draft Declaration of the Twelve," Post-Martyrdom

Now we come to a bit of sophistry, where we see the gamesmanship of the Correlation Department.   

When you dig into this, you'll eventually be directed to what is called by the Church the "Declaration of the Twelve Apostles, Undated Draft" (see above), found in Brigham Young's effects. 

This is the only document the Church cites in its teachings manual that I quoted at the beginning of this post.

Well, this document was drafted by Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845.  The Church makes this sound like a primary source that we can trust; but what the Church doesn't tell us is that this document was rejected by the Council of Fifty and the Twelve (that's why it never got beyond the "draft" stage)! 

Using the word "draft" is pregnant with meaning here, for what it leaves unsaid; in fact, the Church sorta makes it appear like the opposite, that this was a legit document, by how they caption it:

"Quoted in declaration of the Twelve Apostles (undated draft), reporting Mar. 1844 meeting."

Let this sink in: this document was never signed or adopted because NO ONE WOULD go along with it, including other members of the Twelve, and is now being used as evidence that the Twelve got their authority in this Last Charge meeting?

Orson Pratt (the other Orson) objected to the whole charade, saying he wasn't even at the meeting on March 26, 1844 (and how are keys supposed to be conveyed if not by the laying on of hands, anyway?).

Even Brigham Young wasn't willing to endorse Elder Hyde's gambit.  That says something!

No, Brigham rested his authority-claims on the following:

   "Joseph conferred upon our heads
   all the keys and powers
   belonging to the Apostleship."

(Minutes of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1835-1893 (Salt Lake City, privately published, 2010, p. 42.)

You see, for Brigham it was always about the Apostleship ― NOT THE PRESIDENCY (and Joseph did not, in fact, confer upon Brigham's head any keys and powers because Brigham was ordained on April 14, 1835 by the Three Witnesses: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris).

If you have ever read Brigham Young's discourses, then you know that Brigham's doctrinal explanation for how he could run the Church can be summarized as follows:

   1.  "I'm an apostle, so I can do whatever."

Brother Hozapfel Explains To Us the "Important" (but discredited) Draft Declaration

The fact the Church hangs its hat on this "draft" document is alarming because it shows there's nothing out there to support their narrative, except for a declaration that nobody supported at the time.

Which is why we're left with the Correlation Department citing a discredited document written by Orson Hyde to trace the Twelve's line of authority back to Joseph.

But no matter how you try to fit a hog into a girl's tutu and make it dance, it's still a hog at the end of the day.

I'm just going to repeat myself because this is all so incredible.  The document the Church uses as evidence for the Twelve's priesthood authority was never adopted and was, in fact, rejected by the Council of Fifty and the Twelve at the time.

Maybe Brother Richard Holzapfel can explain it better than me:

"There is another important source about this monumental gathering which may be the earliest written document describing the meeting.  Although it is unknown exactly when it was composed, it could have been written as early as September 1844."

(Richard Holzapfel, "The Prophet's Final Charge to the Twelve")

So . . . let me get this straight.  This "monumental" moment in Church history upon which the Brethren hang all of their priesthood keys appears in our record for the first time after Joseph is dead in an undated and unadopted draft, which no one but Orson Hyde would peddle?

Cool!

Excommunication of Sidney Rigdon

Orson Hyde (down but not out) tried to resurrect his rejected account of the Last Charge Meeting in September 1844, during the excommunication hearings against Sidney Rigdon.

The fascinating thing about Sidney's disciplinary council was that it was as much about the Twelve's right to lead the Church as it was Sidney's membership.

Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Parley Pratt, Amasa Lyman and Heber C. Kimball testified.  NONE OF THEM said anything about the Last Charge (except, of course, Orson Hyde.  So much for the law requiring two or three witnesses, right!).

Orson's account, though, was picked up by the local newspaper who was reporting on the proceedings. 

Years later in the 1850s scribe Leo Hawkins took some artistic liberties with the Manuscript History of the Church and inserted details retroactively into the record which bolstered the Twelve's authority to lead the Church, including some of Orson Hyde's story.  (See, Dinger, "The Council of Fifty," p. 71.)​

I guess it goes to show if you repeat something long enough, it may as well be true.

A Brief Timeline

   1.  March 26, 1844:  Joseph attends a meeting of the Council of Fifty.

   2.  June 27, 1844: Joseph Smith dies.

   3.  August 8, 1844:  The Twelve are voted to be the successor-trustees for the Church (notice that we weren't voting on a successor to Joseph Smith's prophetic mantle; we weren't interested in a "new" prophet; the members were voting on who would take possession of the Church's assets and property as the successor-trustees of the Church Trust.  This was about legal and financial affairs, not spiritual affairs).

   4.   As a sidebar to #3, 25 years later apostle Orson Hyde recollected (yes, he's back) how Brigham Young was transfigured that day, on August 7/8, 1844:

"[Brigham] spoke, and his words went through me like electricity.  This is my testimony; it was not only the voice of Joseph, but there were the features, the gestures and even the stature of Joseph before us in the person of Brigham."(Journal of Discourses 13:181) 

The miracle, of course, was Orson Hyde remembering something he didn't witness since he wasn't in Nauvoo on August 7/8, 1844, and wouldn't arrive until five days later.

   5.  September - December 1844/1845? Who Knows?:  The Draft Declaration of the Twelve is Drafted and Never Adopted.

   6.  1884:  The Council of Fifty no longer meet and informally goes defunct.

   7.  1945:  The last surviving member of the Council of Fifty, Heber J. Grant, dies.  Thus ended the Kingdom of God, and any authority or keys Joseph may have bequeathed it.

​How Does the Church Historian's Office Deal With All This?

Let's pretend you work for the Church Historian's Office.

How are you going to present this information about the Last Charge Meeting to the public?  

"A significant event likely occurred in this meeting, probably in the morning session, about which the minutes are silent but which council members discussed a year later in connection with a written summary prepared by Orson Hyde."

(Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, p. 63.)

Okay, that was painful.  Did you notice what they conspicuously left out after "Orson Hyde?"

They continue:

"Clayton’s brief note that JS spoke 'on heavenly things and many other important subjects' likely marks what was later referred to as JS’s 'last charge.' This may have been an extension of the charge relating the history, purpose, and rules of the council that was typically given to new members and that JS may have delivered in this meeting."

And that, my friends, is the very best explanation our tithing dollars can buy.

Can we confidently stake our eternal welfare on this?

Measure Twice, Cut Once

This was the post that has been on my mind for a long time.

So many of us view "authority" as black-and-white; as if "authority" were something a person either (1) has or (2) doesn't.  But is divine authority binary?

If God were an artist painting with his brush of authority, would the canvas reflect abstract, impressionist, or hyper-realistic strokes?

I wish we would not treat the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is endless and eternal, like we were dishing pumpkin pie, divvying up authority as if it were zero-sum.

   The power and authority
   of the Melchizedek Priesthood
   is to hold the keys
   of all the spiritual blessings
   of the church.

(D&C 107:18)

This will sound familiar to those of you who have read Now I Have a Priesthood: Part 1.

I wish we would understand that God's authority is manifest through the gifts of the Spirit (which He confers liberally; I mean, everyone has at least one gift, right!), not through administrative "keys."

A bishop's authority, after all, is in his gift of discernment:

   And unto the bishop of the church,
   and unto such as God shall appoint
   and ordain to watch over the church
   and to be elders unto the church,
   are to have it given unto them
   to discern all those gifts
   lest there shall be any among you
   professing and yet be not of God.

(D&C 46:27)

I wish we would understand that the Lord operates through all kinds of spiritual gifts.  Anything that comes from God has His authority!  (I wrote about this in Would God that All the Lord's People Were Prophets: Part 4.)

God doesn't put all his eggs in one basket, or in one man (unless you mean Jesus Christ).

Fools Jump In

​I am home sick today with a cold/flu, and I can only handle so many Matlock and Diagnosis Murder reruns (bless Andy Griffith and Dick Van Dyke), so I pulled myself out of bed and decided to tackle the thorniest and most challenging of issues, priesthood succession and Church authority claims.

I've avoided addressing these topics head-on because they require historical and doctrinal context; and even though I graduated in History, fools jump in where angels fear to tread.

I am no angel ― so I guess that makes me a fool.  Here we go: jumping into the deep end.

Trump Card

When I talk with family and friends about the Church, the most common refrain I hear is:

"Tim, the only thing that matters is whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the only divinely-sanctioned authority on earth today.  If I believe they do, then that's it."

I call this the "trump card" of the Restoration. 

When a person plays the "church's-got-the-only-authority card," it effectively ends the conversation and closes the box (and we all know what it's like inside a box, don't we?  "It's dark in here!  Let us out!").

The Epistemological Trap

​When someone plays the Trump Card, I ask them, "What reasons do we have to believe the Church has the only divine authority on earth today?"

I can sort the answers into two categories:

   (1)  Historical Narrative.  People in the LDS tradition who inherited Brigham Young's legacy like me will say something like, "Joseph Smith passed his priesthood keys to the Twelve Apostles to govern the Church after his death.  Brigham Young was the legal successor of Joseph Smith, and the Presidents after him."

   (2)  Spiritual Confirmation.  Here we find people who have received positive, spiritual affirmations regarding the Brethren and feel a strong testimony of their divine appointment.  

My Response:

I am not here to question or challenge other people's spiritual experiences, so I'll leave No. 2 between them and the Lord.

But as for No. 1, okay, that's flat-out false.

"So Long, and Thanks for All the [Plain and Precious Parts]"

What can we do when we're up against generations of cultural conditioning?  Against an imperfect and incomplete historical record?

And what's worse, against men who consciously altered and changed many of the teachings and events in our history?

   (1) Brigham Young Having a Heyday with our History

"I notice the interpolations because having been employed in the Historian’s office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph’s death his memoir was “doctored” to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards."

(Inez Smith, “Biography of Charles Wesley Wandell,” Journal of History 3 (Jan. 1910): pp. 455-63)

   (2)  Wilford Woodruff, a Reluctant Accomplice

When Wilford Woodruff approached Brigham on July 11, 1856 about Hyrum leading the Church, we learn from Woodruff's journal that Brigham Young advised "it is not essential to be inserted in the history and it had better be omitted."

   (3)  D&C 110

I mean, something as important as the Lord appearing in the Kirtland Temple to Joseph and Oliver has not withstood the test of time.  It was recorded in Joseph's Journal (suspiciously at the very end of the notebook) in 3rd Person by Warren Cowdery, with long quotations which the Church Historian's Office admits "must have relied upon a source no longer extant."

   (4)  D&C 132

Or take the magnum opus on Plural Marriage, D&C 132.  The original was destroyed and only a copy in the
handwriting of Joseph Kingsbury survives as a copy of something else.  That's right: a copy of a copy from a guy nobody's ever heard of, which was concealed and privately held by Brigham Young and only published in 1852 (decades later) after the Saints had jumped on the polygamy bandwagon.

What's going on?  Well, the same thing that has been going on since the beginning of time: the victors write the history.

I point these things out as a small sampling of the historical issues we have with our own Church History.  

   Reader beware.

An Example of Recent Mischief

The angel warned us, he really did.  Well, to be technical, he warned Nephi about the mischief that would ensue after the records were messed up. 

As a consequence of the plain and precious parts being removed,

   The Gentiles do stumble exceedingly.

(1 Nephi 13:34)

I encountered, first hand, an example of "stumbling" a couple weeks ago in Sacrament Meeting when a sister quoted Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge (a member of the Seventy). 

The quote was shocking.  I was aghast, and now these things were being trumpeted to the impressionable youth in the ward. 

Elder Corbridge introduced his topic on deception in the latter-days (too ironic to be believed, I know), saying:

"The kingdom of God is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It will 'stand for ever' (Dan. 2:44).  The question is, Will you and I stand? Will you stand forever, or will you go away? And if you go, where will you go?"

(Lawrence E. Corbridge, "Stand Forever," BYU Speeches, Jan. 22, 2019)

Each and every part of that quote is misleading, manipulative and regrettable.

   (1)  The kingdom of God is NOT the same thing as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

While I can forgive a layperson for conflating the Church and the Kingdom of God, as a member of the Seventy Elder Corbridge knows better.  This is religious malpractice.  

Joseph Smith taught:

   There is a distinction between
   the Church of God
   and kingdom of God.
   The laws of the kingdom
   are not designed to effect
   our salvation hereafter.
   It is an entire, distinct 
   and separate government.
   The church is a spiritual 
   matter and a spiritual
   kingdom.
   
   The literal kingdom of God
   and the church of God
   are two distinct things.

(Joseph Smith, Administrative Records, The Joseph Smith Papers, Church Historian Press, 2016, p. 128)

   (2)  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will NOT "stand forever."

Neither is the Church the same thing as the Kingdom of Heaven.  And it goes without saying the Church is not Zion.

So what is the Church?  Well, it is a body corporate that began on a specific date (April 6, 1830, to be exact); and as Joseph Smith taught, it is good logic that anything that has a beginning must have an end.

Where do we find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Celestial Kingdom?  Or even in the Terrestrial?  

Nope, you've got to go all the way down to the telestial kingdom (that we currently inhabit) to find the Church.

But in the heavens we find the Church of the Firstborn; also called the Church of the Lamb; but nowhere do we find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

The Church is an airplane that must make a connecting flight; it does not offer service to our desired destination.

   (3)  There's no question about whether you and I will stand; we're immortal.

"The mind of man is as immortal as God himself," Joseph taught.  Elder Corbridge was saying that we can only stand if we remain in-step with the Church, which is to say, the Brethren, which is to say (in his mind, I suppose), the Lord.  

Anyone who equates the Church with the Lord makes a mockery of God, and insults him, as if he bore the faults of our imperfect organization. 

The Church falls short of Christ's attributes.  Just look at the fact that the Church is defending sexual abusers and their right to the confessional while denying the same privileges to Church employees.  The hypocrisy is beyond the pale.

   (4)  There's no question about where we'll go: wherever Christ is!

Elder Corbridge is apparently alluding to this passage in the New Testament:

   Then Jesus said:
   Will ye also go away?
   Then Simon Peter answered him,
   Lord, to whom shall we go?
   thou hast the words of eternal life.

(John 6:68)

Does the Church have the words of eternal life?  Does the Church save us?

When will we learn that the Fold of God is here to help us "bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; and mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God" (Mosiah 18:8-9)?

That is the purpose of the Church; we don't need all the bells and whistles about body piercings and tithing and don't-say-'Mormon'; we don't need to boss each other around.

No one needs the religious equivalent of North Korea!​​