Big Tent Mormonism

In this Series I'm hoping to introduce some ideas that can turn our hearts and move the needle toward Zion, and do it in a gentle manner ― since "gentleness" is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22).

   Q:  In Church we're told to "come unto Christ," but what does that mean?

Following Christ is not as simple as it sounds (as evidenced by 2000+ years of our failure to live the Sermon on the Mount).

We've got to start somehwere, so we might as well begin with the Savior's most important and fundamental commandment, the one He gave His disciples at the Last Supper, to "love one another."

With "love" being the Prime Directive of Christianity, why has the Church failed to achieve true brotherhood and sisterhood among its members?

I think it's safe to say our inability to love (like Christ) is the reason Zion is still an ideal rather than a reality. 

After so long, we may begin to wonder if it is even possible to meet our Lord's expectations.

   Be one;
   and if ye are not one
   ye are not mine.

(D&C 38:27)

That verse sobers me up like a splash of ice water; I cringe when I think of the Lord calling us "not mine."

Clearly what we've tried hasn't worked; how do we become "one"?

In all honesty, I don't think the current policies and practices of the Church are destined to succeed. 

   So we need a new gameplan.

Not a new Church ― oh no, good heavens; there are already too many of those!  There's no need to rush off to your lawyer's office to incorporate a new religious organization or trademark a spiritual-sounding name.  The world doesn't need more leaders looking for a following.  We already have a leader, who is our King.

And like our King, the Kingdom of God is among us; just not in the way we think.

If it Ain't Broke

Since God isn't the author of confusion or contention, and is actively working to bring His children into a unity of the faith, why hasn't it worked?  Why do we struggle to genuinely love one another?

We've seen Christianity split apart into a thousand churches and sects; even the Restored Church has fractured into dozens of movements and branches.  None have achieved Zion.

I'll tell you one of the main reasons: everybody wants to argue over authority; who is right?  Who is wrong?  When we should be asking: Who is loving? 

Love was the sign the Savior gave us to spot His true disciples (John 13:35), so love is the only authority that ultimately matters to the Sons and Daughters of God (despite what people pointing to keys might say).

Let's look at the following verse, which is the one we usually quote about Zion:

   The Lord called his people Zion,
   because they were of
   (1) one heart and
   (2) one mind, and
   (3) dwelt in righteousness; and
   (4) there was no poor among them.

(Moses 7:18)

I want to suggest that this verse is sequential; it describes an order of things like one of grandma's recipes.

   (1) First, the Lord's people become of "one heart."  Nothing else really matters until we take this first step.

   (2)  Second, and only after we've learned to genuinely love one another, can there be any hope of becoming "one mind."  We receive the mind of Christ as a consequence of being filled with His heart.

This step describes sharing a common vision and faith; teaching one another the doctrines of the kingdom and being taught by the Spirit so the whole body is edified with light and revelations pour down not a few.

But this doesn't mean we will all think alike; we aren't the same; there won't be pews stacked with Stepford Wives of the Lehi East Stake. 

We'll have different opinions and different ways of doing things, and that's okay.  We'll take time to talk, persuade, party, study, sleep, vote, ponder and pray; and we won't mind giving each other ample space to exercise the unique gifts of the Spirit we've each been given.

   (3)  Third, once we are united in heart and in mind, and only then, can we dwell together in peace (think: Melchizedek) and be considered "righteous" (meaning, the Lord's people).

Righteousness here is not an individual trait; we're talking about a divine power, or endowment, that emerges among a people who are united in the service of their King; it is held collectively by all.  Imagine it!  Imagine what kind of world we could create if we had pure love, united faith, and exercised real intent.

   (4)  Finally, we observe the first thing that happens among a righteous people is the complete eradication of poverty ― not because of programs, welfare, or legislation.  Where did the poor go?

Why are there "no poor" in Zion?  Is it a gated community that keeps out the riff-raff?

Someone might object, "But Tim, didn't the Lord say we'll always have the poor with us (Mark 14:7)?"

Well, yes.  In Babylon, or among the wicked, we create systems that cause and reinforce poverty.

   But in Zion?

Where's the Love?
​
Which step (1 thru 4) do you think we are on?  

I would wager we're still at No. 1, learning to love as our Master loves; learning to become like "little children" (Mosiah 3:18).

There are several reasons I think we are love-blocked and have structured the church like high schoolers arranging the lunch tables by popularity.

The first thing I want to make clear is this: divine love is a fruit of the Spirit (that's obvious, I know).  But that simple fact explains a lot.

Once we realize there's a relationship between love and the Spirit, we'll start seeing that love thrives and grows in an environment where the Spirit dwells; but it shrinks as the Spirit of God ceases to strive with us.

So the question we should start asking (before we ask how we can be more loving) is, "What is the best environment for the Spirit?"  

Surprise!  The Spirit cares deeply about power dynamics; it seeks temples filled with humility; the Lord resisteth the proud (who usually think they know best and should be in charge).  So the Spirit spreads its wings where liberty is found, among the meek.

We can follow the breadcrumbs to the Lord by tracing prinicples of agency, consent, equality and mutual agreement.

   My soul standeth fast
   in that liberty in the which
   God hath made us free. . . 
   according to the Spirit of God,
   which is also the spirit of freedom.

(Alma 61:9, 15)

On the other hand, love withers in a controlling and authoritarian environment, which ravages the Spirit.  Watch for those employing the principles of fear and guilt to secure our obedience.  The scriptures describe this environment as "captivity" or spiritual "bondage," which grieves the Spirit.

What's the Solution?

What's the answer?  Well, we just saw it given by Jacob: receive the words of Christ and His power through the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Aflame with the Spirit's fire, love will flood our congregations as we honor each other's spiritual identity and gifts.  In other words, as we let the Spirit breathe.

But don't think we're going to accomplish this by "becoming more loving."  I love that phrase, implying we can increase our ability to love as if it were as simple as making bigger deposits into our bank account when we're living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The kind of love we're discussing (the pure love of Christ) is not within human reach; it is not something our leaders can confer upon us; we have to "come unto Christ" to receive it.

That's why I've spent so much time discussing the gifts of the Spirit and the Holy Ghost: because Divine Love is a fruit or gift of the Spirit.  As Moroni said at the end of his record, "These gifts come by the Spirit of Christ" (Moroni 10:17). 

   From where? 

So the gift of love is not something that comes packaged in a person's priesthood office or authority; it's the opposite: divine authority is packaged with pure love. 

In other words, love can't be passed around by the laying-on-of-hands; it is conferred by God and not our home teacher.

Mormon and Paul wrote my favorite passages on love in all of scripture; they taught the way to obtain charity from the Father as follows:   

   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;
   that when he shall appear
   we shall be like him, for we shall
   see him as he is; that we may have
   this hope; that we may be purified
   even as he is pure.

(Moroni 7:48)

   Because of meekness and
   lowliness of heart
   cometh the visitation
   of the Holy Ghost,
   which Comforter
   filleth with hope
   and perfect love.

(Moroni 8:26)

Hmmm.  Why does Mormon connect charity with purification?  What is the relationship between love and sanctification?

The Dove is Love

Remember: the Dove is Love.  We receive the gift of love from God by the power of the Holy Ghost, as Paul taught in Romans:

   The love of God is shed abroad
   in our hearts by the Holy Ghost
   which is given unto us.

(Romans 5:5)

Did you notice Paul's use of the term "shed?"  Did it remind you of Nephi's vision, when the angel showed him the Tree of Life, which was a representation of the love of God?

   Knowest thou the meaning
   of the tree which thy father saw?

   And I answered him, saying:
   Yea, it is the love of God,
   which sheddeth itself abroad
   in the hearts of the children of men;
   wherefore, it is the most desirable
   above all things.

(1 Nephi 11:21-22)

So we're seeing the same phrase repeated, which probably means it's important.  What does it mean for love to be "shed abroad in our hearts?"

This might sound weird, but think of a snake "shedding" its skin.  While we usually associate "snakes" with the devil, remember that Satan took the form of a serpent in imitation of our Lord.

The snake, in the beginning, was a symbol of Christ (think: Moses raising the brazen serpent), who shed His exalted, glorified skin to condescend to earth, taking upon Himself flesh.

In an amazing sleight of hand, Babylon built churches that convinced us authority comes from being in charge ("keys") instead of being the least of all.

Christ's authority arose from His love, which was demonstrated by His condescension.

Yet we are fixated on the chief seats, taking our cues from those that sit in them, whilst Christ serves on the wait staff, dressed simply as the kitchen-help.​

Shedded Wheat

The dictionary defines the verb "to shed" as 'to eject, slough off, or lose as part of the normal processes of life.'

Picture the sun and the way it burns, shedding its heat.  The sun's heat radiates outwards (abroad) and can be felt millions of miles away.  When we stand in our backyard barbequing steaks, we can feel its warmth on our skin.

So it is with God's love.  God "sheds" His love abroad; and I want to make the point that this love is Spirit, even His Spirit, which (like light) is a part of His being.  It's real, not metaphysical.

I'm not taking us down a side-trip; I want to suggest that this is the very essence of the gospel.  I mean, we're talking about God's love!

Let's tweak the following passage of scripture to make the point:

   Which truth [love]
   shineth ["sheddeth"].
   This is the light [love] of Christ.
   As also he is in the sun,
   and the light of the sun,
   and the power thereof
   by which it was made.

   And the light [love]
   which shineth [sheddeth],
   which giveth you light [love],
   is through him who enlighteneth
   your eyes, which is
   the same light [love]
   that quickeneth
   your understandings [hearts];

   Which light [love] proceedeth forth
   from the presence of God
   to fill the immensity of space--

   The light [love] which is in
   all things, which giveth life
   to all things,
   which is the law by which
   all things are governed,
   even the power of God.

(D&C 88:7, 11-13)

Haven't we read that God dwells in everlasting burnings?  That doesn't sound pleasant, does it?  I mean, can't He afford an air conditioner for heaven?

Well love, like light, produces heat.  We risk getting burned.  But the heat is very real: it "is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). 

So we shouldn't be surprised when Mormon tells us that the pure love of Christ is what purifies His sons like fire, purging our impurity and uncleanness.

The Lord's love is sanctifying, as Nephi learned from personal experience:
​
   He hath filled me
   with his love,
   even unto the consuming
   of my flesh.

(2 Nephi 4:21)

To love is to lose one's life, i.e., our attachment to status, authority, riches and control.

So we see the reason that the Church produces a people of sterile heart; why we ingest artificial sweetners instead of Christ's organic honey; because the Church is terribly attached to its authority, its riches, and its control.

​Let go.

Be Refreshed

In this Series I hope to refresh our spirits as we discuss ways to become more accepting, loving, and compassionate in the Church.  It is my attempt to reach across the aisle in fellowship and friendship.

We need a little green in our garden; the world isn't all bleak, even if it seems at times like we're treading water and sinking.  The life vests God has given us are . . . each other.  

I know I'm not the only one who feels a heaviness draping the world.  But aren't these supposed to be the fantastic "times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19)?  So let's turn some water to wine and have a party.

As my wife and I like to say to each other (usually when we're stressed and weary), "Hey, snap out of it.  These are our Fun Forties!"  (I'm looking forward to our Fabulous Fifties.  And can't wait for our Sexy Sixties.)

And so, in the spirit of goodwill and grace, I want to say to all of you, as Paul said to his friends:

   That I may come unto you
   with joy by the will of God,
   and may with you 
   be refreshed.

(Romans 15:32)

Who said January is the saddest month of the year?  We can rejoice in Christ all-year-round, as true brothers and sisters in the household of faith.

Throwing a Cloak of Charity

Something has been troubling me for some time.  I worry that our spiritual community is fracturing.  As I have pondered how we can bridge the growing gap between the various groups in the Church, some ideas have come to me that I thought I would share in this Series.

As Sunstone likes to say, "There is more than one way to Mormon."  But now, even using the word "Mormon" is divisive.  What is happening?

Have you also observed a hardening, or calcification, of our willingness to give generous space to others who view the world differently?  I admit to falling short myself.  Mea culpa.  To the extent I have contributed to discord and division, I am sorry.  

Listen, do you hear that?  No, not my apology; the Lord calling us off the fence!  Why?  Because the fence we're sitting on is barbed wire to our souls. 

Normally the analogy of fence-sitting is about getting us to "pick a side."  But I think we should be asking a different question: Why is there a fence at all?  

I mean, should we be building fences in the Lord's sheepfold?  You know I'm always talking about ways hierarchies create inequality; but just as bad is the way fences set up stakes that separate us; so let us remove the chain link and be united.

   And he gathereth his children
   from the four quarters of the earth;
   and he numbereth his sheep,
   and they know him; and there
   shall be one fold and one shepherd;
   and he shall feed his sheep,
   and in him they shall find pasture.

(1 Nephi 22:25)

"But Tim!" someone says, "We can't accept sinful behavior; we have to keep the doctrine pure; we've got to teach the truth and sure, the wicked will take it hard.  That's their problem."

Well, I agree, but can't we do all of those things in the spirit of love and compassion?

Joseph Smith's advice is helpful:

   (1)  "If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins" (HC 4:445).

   (2) "[Being] persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me" (JS-H 1:28).

The Savior is not asking us to get our swords bloody, but our hands dirty; He is calling us to follow Him by taking care of all His lambs, even the ones that smell and who are covered with gross grime. 

In my case, He's asking me to show greater charity to priests who oppress and towards those who drape leis upon golden calves; it goes both ways.

"Halt"

Elijah shouted to the Israelites on Mt. Carmel:

   How long halt ye 
   between two opinions?
   If the Lord be God,
   follow him;
   but if Baal, 
   then follow him.

(1 Kings 18:21)

I assume we all want to follow the Lord; but what does that look like in 2023?  How would the Lord treat the prophets of Baal?

Well, sure, Elijah killed them.  But let's take off our Old Testament hats for a minute.  What would a New Testament Jesus tell us to do with the priests of Baal?

Mormon is perhaps the greatest example of Christlike behavior I can think of in this context: when dealing with the most awful, wicked Nephites, he said:

   Behold, I had led them,
   notwithstanding their wickedness
   I had led them many times
   to battle, and had loved them,
   according to the love of God
   which was in me, with all my heart;
   and my soul had been poured out
   in prayer unto my God
   all the day long for them.

   And now, my beloved son,
   notwithstanding their hardness,
   let us labor diligently.

(Mormon 3:12; Moroni 9:6)

I predict that world events await that will take us on the greatest adventure of our times, which is learning to love our enemies; to do good to those who abuse us; to pray for those who hurt us ― and that's just talking about other members of our ward!

A Window to our Souls

Here are some of the responses of active members defending the faith.  Let's rate how effective their approaches are:

Comment 1: "Following the prophet is the only safe course."

This is a fairly charitable response; it reflects a spiritual world-view that values commandment-keeping and covenant-making.  It sees the prophet as the embodiment of the Covenant Path.

For the purposes of this post, I want to talk about the lines forming between two distinct groups in the Church.

   Group 1.  Group 1 includes those who view the Prophet and apostles as God's only spokesmen on earth who cannot lead us astray.  These apostles are our most trusted spiritual advisors and any criticism of them is unrighteous.  "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over."

   Group 2.  Group 2 (full disclosure, this is the group I belong in) believes the apostles and prophets are good men doing their best but they can err in doctrine and in practice, as we've seen historically, and whenever our conscience conflicts with their counsel, we should heed our inner light and the Holy Ghost.

Which group is in the majority?  I would guess it is Group 1 becasue these are the things currently being taught by Headquarters, such as when Elder Bednar addressed the students at BYU-Idaho in his talk, "That Ye May Believe: part 2" (October 2022), framing our faith in Christ with his "five doctrinal truths":

   1.  Priesthood authority and keys
   2. Prophets and apostles
   3. Additional latter-day scripture
   4. Covenants and ordinances
   5. Temple covenants

(In case you glossed over that last part, Elder Bednar, who is a special witness of Christ, is teaching us that our faith in Christ is demonstrated by . . . our faith in Church leaders.)

But I worry that Group 2 is being edged out of our seats; Group 1 is labeling us in a negative light, with names like "apostates," "lazy learners," "deceived," "insubordinate," etc. 

What is the solution?

TBMs Speak

Let's look a couple more comments on the Facebook thread regarding those having a faith crisis:

Comment 2:  "[Those who have faith crises] have not kept their covenants and have lost the spirit and are now under the influence of the devil.  We are warned this will happen if we don't keep the covenants we make in the temple."

This person was repeating the notion that sustaining the prophet and remaining in the Church is the greatest sign of "keeping our covenants."

I am not surprised by this sentiment; we've all been to family gatherings where a grandparent gushes over the Church activity of their posterity. 

We've cultivated a culture of "Church Activity = Faithfulness," haven't we?

So anyone who questions or leaves the Church becomes suspect; by definition it is a mark of faithlessness; they must be sinners, or "under Satan's power." 

But flip it around.  How many in Group 2 find people in Group 1 to be some of the hardest people to love?

Maybe unity will come when we become more like little children.

Stealing Our Milk Money

One last comment and then we'll move on:

Comment 3:  "Guess what butter cups you are not special with your faith crisis or whatever you seem to be going through.  This world is designed to kick our collective [rear ends] and steal our milk money.  Life is fair because its unfair to everyone, including you puddin."

I think that statement speaks for itself.

I've quoted these three comments to show that many mainstream members view discipleship as a function of our loyalty and obedience to the prophet and to the Church (Group 1). 

But what happens when Church leadership is filled from the ranks of people from Group 1? 

What are those in Group 2 to do?

Love them.  Bless them.  Pray for them.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward

Well, I shouldn't be surprised.  After all, there must be opposition in all things; how else could we choose between the bitter and the sweet; between faith and fear; 'twixt gold refined seven times in the fire versus a golden calf?

And so yesterday, at the same time I posted the conclusion to "Would God that All the Lord's People Were Prophets" (assuming I had said everything I needed to say about prophets), Elder Kevin S. Hamilton of the 70 gave a BYU devotional and pretty much said the opposite.  

That's right: his address, Why a Church?, serves as a nice rebuttal to my post.  What I like about the talk is the fact it isn't subtle at all; it is the clearest statement I have seen recently from a General Authority about what the Church actually believes.

Reading his talk made me sad; just when I thought the Church might be getting over the nonsense of the Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet; just when I thought we might be waking from our medically-induced coma of carnal security ― something like this comes along.

​Let me share the words that whispered in my mind as I read Elder Hamilton's remarks:

   But behold, and fear, and tremble
   before God, for [we] ought to tremble;
   for . . . [we] have wilfully rebelled
   against God, that have known
   the commandments of God,
   and would not keep them.

(Mosiah 15:26)

For context, those words were spoken by Abinadi to the priests of King Noah; and like them, we should really know better.

We're better than this.

The Church Is a Drug?

Yes, Elder Hamilton said the Church is a drug ― in perhaps the poorest analogy of all time (but it really is a propos since we seem to be getting a "high" off the fumes).

Elder Hamilton taught the students at the Lord's University:

"We can think of the Church using the analogy of a prescription drug capsule. The Church is the capsule, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the medicine delivered inside the capsule. The Church delivers the blessings of the Atonement of Christ to its members who are faithful disciples of Jesus Christ."

Ah, I was mistaken: the atonement is the drug; the Church is merely dispensing it.  But do we want the Church acting as our pharmacist?  

Me:  "I'm here to fill my prescription."

Pharm Bro:  "You can't have those narcotics; they are restricted."

Me:  "Umm.  My doctor, who I trust, prescribed them for my use."

Pharm Bro:  "I think I know better than your physician."

Me:  "I will call the licensing board unless you give me my prescription."

Pharm Bro:  "Fine, fine; stop being such a jerk about it.  Here is your medicine; it'll cost you $1,000,000."

Me:  "My doctor said that insurance will cover the cost 100%.  He has a very good plan."

Pharm Bro:  "You think I work for free?  The medicine might be covered, but my time is valuable.  You need to pay me $1,000,000 or I won't give it to you."

Me:  "That is, I think, extortion."

Pharm Bro:  "So sue me."

   ***

Elder Hamilton taught it is impossible to completely follow Christ without following His Church and, therefore, His prophets. 

"Substitute the word ‘Savior’ or ‘Lord’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ in place of ‘the Church.’ ... For me, personally, that seems to put a very different perspective on things."

Ummm.  Did he really just say to "substitute" the Church in place of the Savior?

We Believe in . . . Who?

The Church Newsroom concluded their reporting on his talk:

"It is important to move forward with faith, 'trusting, hoping, believing,' looking to the prophet and apostles for guidance, said Elder Hamilton."

   1.  Guidance.  Notice where Elder Hamilton tells us to look for "guidance."  To the "prophet and apostles."

   Look unto God
   with firmness of mind.

(Jacob 3:1)

   2.  Trusting.  According to Elder Hamilton, in whom do we trust?

   O Lord, I have trusted in thee,
   and I will trust in thee forever.
   I will not put my trust
   in the arm of flesh.

(2 Nephi 4:34)

   3.  Believe.  If we follow Elder Hamilton's counsel, in whom do we believe?

   Believe in God; believe that he is,
   and that he created all things,
   both in heaven and in earth;
   believe that he has all wisdom.

(Mosiah 4:9)

   4.  Hope.  Finally, the idea that we should place our hope in our leaders blew my mind.  

   Ye have obtained a hope
   in Christ.

(Jacob 2:19)

Notice I quoted here only verses from the Book of Mormon; so I am not some Jesus-crazed-evangelical; I am mainstream Mormon.

So the question is, how does Elder Hamilton ― who was a CEO and venture capitalist; obviously a bright fellow, who has served as a Stake President and Mission President ― reconcile his teachings with what the word of God says?

Well, we don't have to speculate; he told us!  All of these gospel gymnastics make a sort of perverse sense when we substitute the Church for the Savior and vice-versa; when we treat them as one-and-the-same; when we play with the gospel and the Church as if they were interchangable arms on Mr. Potato Head. 

   The Church = the Savior

But the Church is comprised of normal, imperfect people; so we best not jump on the bandwagon with Elder Hamilton unless we'd like to see more:

   1.  Priesthood restrictions based on race;

   2.  Mountain Meadows Massacres, which was carried out under leaderhip's supervision;

   3.  Johnston's Armies because we believe in Adam-God, tithing offices, polygamy, slavery, killing Native Americans, and blood atonement; and

   4.  Policies of Exclusion and Church Handbooks as long as the US Tax Code. 

Throwing Down the Gauntlet

Elder Hamilton may as well have taken out a white glove and challenged the gospel of Jesus Christ to a duel.  His remarks were like a slap in the face (I almost reached for my musket).

Why?  Because he's teaching the rising generation that the Covenant Path is the means of our exaltation; and the way we access the blessings of the atonement is through our temple covenants (and here's the fine print) which are only available through the mediation of the Church's authority.  Ergo, Christ is subordinate to the Church.

Oh, that's right, I forgot we're Catholic!  Compare what Elder Hamilton taught with what the Catholic Church teaches:

Elder Hamilton:  

The First Presidency of the Church provides:
   - priesthood keys and authority
   - covenants and ordinances
   - prophetic direction
   - scriptures

Catholic Church: 

"The pope and the bishops provide the authoritative interpretation of scripture and to exercise authority as leaders over the entire Church and as the priesthood that administers grace through its seven sacraments.  At the head of the Church is the Pope, who is representative of Christ on earth."

   And their priests shall . . .
   deny the power of God, 
   the Holy One of Israel;
   and they say unto the people:
   Hearken unto us, and hear ye
   our precept; for behold
   there is no God today
   [but the one you make covenants with,
   which covenants can only be obtained
   by subscribing to our annual payment
   plan of 10% of your moneys];
   for the Lord and the Redeemer
   hath done his work,
   and he hath given his power
   [and keys and authority]
   unto men;  Behold, hearken ye
   unto my precept.

(2 Nephi 28:5-6)

Has the time come to amend our Articles of Faith to conform to the current order of things?

Article of Faith 1:
​
   We believe in the President
   of the Church,
   the living prophet,
   and his counselors,
   the First Presidency,
   and in the Quorum
   of Twelve Apostles.

We've Come a Long Way

Let's see, we began this Series way back in May 2022; I think we better wrap it up because there are some exciting new Series planned for this year!

If you recall, we've been taking a long-and-hard look at one of the most important questions facing us today: What is a "prophet"? 

Is a prophet a calling?  An office?  A gift of the Spirit?

What does a prophet do?  How do we recognize them?

And most importantly, how do we spot a false prophet in sheep's clothing?  "Baaa-raaam-yoooou, sheep be true!"

Because we've covered so much ground, I think it will be useful to review the breadcrumbs we've followed to arrive here:

​Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 1

   (1)  We play at the Emperor's New Clothes when we teach that those who wear the title of "prophet" are prophets regardless of whether they produce the fruit of a prophet (remember "you cannot gather figs from thistles").

   (2)  Are we heeding Christ's admonition, "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:15-16), asking ourselves whether those we look to as prophets are producing the fruits of prophethood?

   (3)  The Lord's pattern is always to call "many prophets" (1 Nephi 1:4) among the people (not just from the ranks of leadership) to call us to repent.  There are lots of voices out there.  Which ones should we listen to?  Normally we're told to stick with "authorized sources."  But the side effect of being authority-focused (rather than truth-focused) is that our discernment-bone atrophies.  

   (4)  Mormon characterizes prophets as "holy men . . . [who] did speak the word of God with power and with authority" (Words of Morm. 1:17).

   (5)  The example of Eldad and Medad show that prophets do not need "administrative keys."  Their authority came from God, not men, as Moses taught.

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 2

   (6)  Prophets point to Christ and not to themselves.  Beware the lupine precept to 'follow the prophet' (I'm always baffled by the way leadership boasts in General Conference of the prophet's authority and special status when the greatest prophet ever born, John the Baptist, confessed he wasn't worthy to even tie Jesus's shoelaces).

   (7)  The most important role of a prophet is to testify of Christ and teach the people the words of Christ (see, 3 Nephi 20:24 and 2 Nephi 32:3).

   (8)  Prophets possess the "testimony of Jesus" (using that as a term of art). 

   (9)  A prophet does not always speak as a prophet; they're only a prophet when they speak "by the power of the Holy Ghost."

   (10)  When prophets speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, they become messengers of God ― a.k.a. angels.

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 3

   (11)  We do a great disservice when we teach that "authority" is severable from "power" (if authority persisted in the absence of power, then we would all still be Catholic).  In reality, whenever authority is bestowed from heaven, it is always accompanied by the power of God, enabling the person to perform the work God commissions them to do.

   (12)  Here's the imporant thing to remember: divine authority is a spiritual endowment, a gift; it does not come from an institutional office.  I cannot emphasize this enough.  For example, Jesus's authority came from the Father and not from the Jewish leadership.

​​​​​​Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 4

   (13)  A prophet's call comes from God (naturally).  It is not complicated: God gives someone a job to do (their "commission" or "calling"), and that commission is accompanied by divine permission (i.e. authority) to do it, and with divine grace (i.e. power) to accomplish the thing the Lord's asked them to do.

   (14)  The call comes from God and is issued by the calling of the Lord's own voice (1 Sam. 3:3-4).

   (15)  My favorite example of how God calls a prophet is Amos, who defended himself before the High Priest Amaziah (who was challenging Amos's authority since he was outside the ranks of leadership); Amos said, "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son. I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit.  And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel" (Amos 7:14-15).  That's all it took.

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 5

​   (16)  Prophets are rarely impressive by worldly standards; David was chosen by Samuel but not based on his appearance.  If you think you're weak; if you think you're simple; if you think you're unworthy ― I have good news for you!  You're exactly the kind of person the Lord is looking for (see D&C 4:3-4).

   (17)  Elijah was just one of 7,000 prophets in Israel; we are not alone, even if it feels like it.

   (18)  Interested in a side-gig doing the Lord's work?  When the Lord calls a prophet, he doesn't hold a news conference (sorry, Deseret News).  No bleached-teeth smiles for the flashing cameras.  The call comes without pay (except for the Lord's blessings) and without praise; there's no pension plan because you'll likely be matyred or translated.

   (19)  The word of the Lord is often found in the "still small voice."  Nine times out of ten, the voice tells us to "Go" ― to press forward in faith, trusting in the word we have received from God, and to fearlessly "open our mouths," not fearing what man can do ― even if those men are our bishops and stake presidents.

​​​​​​​Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 6

   (20)  I try to practice what I preach.  Owl of the Desert is my attempt to publicly share the word of God that I have received, as one of His witnesses; the poems I have written are the fire in my bones (see, e.g., the poem Elijah).

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 7
​
   (21)  It is stunning how consistent the Lord is in calling prophets, as we see in the examples of Samuel, Moses, Amos, Abraham, Samuel the Lamanite, Joseph Smith, Nephi III, and Abinadi.  These guys weren't chosen by seniority; they weren't in the running of Church leadership; they didn't choose to become prophets, but were chosen by the Lord.

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 8

   (22)(a)  In Part 8, I used Brigham Young as an example of how prophets are imperfect people who can lead us astray unless we are careful to discern when they are speaking as a man versus speaking the word of God (which is when their words are given by the power of the Holy Ghost, see D&C 68:4).

   (22)(b)  I think we'd be better off if we stopped quoting General Conference like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and instead shared what is given by the Spirit of the Lord, no matter its source.  Don't get me wrong: we can hear the word of God at times preached in General Conference, which is wonderful; and other times we have heard the doctrines of men that have made me sick to my stomach.  But I've also heard the word of God among the Methodists and Calvinists and Jews and Episcopalians, too.  So. 

   (23)  Look, nobody likes being a Negative-Nelly, so I'm sure Alma took no delight in telling Nehor, "Were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction" (Alma 1:12).  Some of the practices of the Church today fall into the category of "priestcraft."  So we either get to repent and change, or . . . you know.

​​​Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 9

   (24)  The gift of prophecy allows us to see forward; the gift of history allows us to see backwards.  We can witness the hand of the Lord in His dealings with the children of men over millennia.  We are uniquely situated in this dispensation to have the greatest amount of history than anyone before.  And so it is alarming to see us repeating many of the mistakes of our ancestors (one example is the way we gravitate towards the law over the light; to keeping carnal commandments and captivity rather than claiming our freedom in Christ; to creating religious rules like Latter-day Pharisees rather than Saints).

   (25)  According to scripture, we are poised to see the greatest amount of prophecy that has ever been unleashed on earth as God reveals things that have been hidden since before the foundation of the world.  Let's get excited!

​Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 10
​
   (26)  If you're looking for a short-list on what prophets do, then these are the things that top my list:

     a.  Prophets make intercession for the iniquities of the people.

     b.  Prophets declare repentance and invite people to turn to the Lord.

     c.  Prophets take care of the poor.  For real.

     d.  Prophets perform the works of Christ.  

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 11
​
   (27)(a)  Why do we sometimes reject the Lord's true messengers, since that goes against our self-interest?  Is it because we don't really think they're "true" prophets?  Probably; I mean, the Nephites shot arrows at Samuel the Lamanite because they thought he was an imposter, too.

   (27)(b)  But flip it around: why do we embrace false prophets?  It must be because we actually think they're the real McCoy.  Why are we easily tricked?  Satan knows how to make his messengers appear respectable and appealing.

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 12

​   (28)  False prophets are described by Peter as "wells without water" (2 Pet. 2:17).  Instead of sating our thirst with the living water of Christ's word, they offer us a saline solution of flattery and feigned words.

   (29)  According to Peter, a false shepherd is one who "makes merchandise of you" (2 Pet. 2:3); so we should pause when someone, even (especially) the Church, wants to take our time, talents and treasure.

   (30)  Ezekiel compares false prophets to "foxes in the desert" (Ezek. 13:4) because they are sly and can't stand the heat of the day (they're nocturnal).  What's worse, these leaders have "not gone up into the gaps."  Picture a wall of defense; instead of their words filling the gaps, providing inspired counsel and direction, their words actually cause the wall to erode further; or another way to look at it is they plaster over the holes with pablums and platitudes, leaving us exposed and vulnerable to the devil's darts.  It reminds me of what Nephi said, "They have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men" (2 Nephi 28:14).

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 13

   (31)  This might hit close to home, but false prophets preach a gospel of carnal security (2 Nephi 28:21).  If you're wondering what carnal security means, I like the way these two people describe it:

     a.  Elisa:  "Our Church teaches that we earn our way back to God through obeying the rules.  It is that fundamental understanding of God and the atonement and the plan of salvation that leads to misguided and harmful ideas."

     b.  L.H.:  "We like to feel special, chosen, better-than, saved. We like to construct realities that preserve our ... culture of certainty. Faith and humility – the kind of humility that admits we might not have the answers – is a ton harder; wrestling and choosing for ourselves [is harder than just obeying an authority figure]. So we attach to ideas, frameworks, people, leaders, rules to take away the fear and uncertainty and hard work. And because those things (including leaders) make us feel safe, we idolize them. Eventually, we worship them because it feels good and safe to do so."

   (32)  An example of how carnal security pops up at Church is when the lesson is on "Valiant Discipleship" and instead of discussing our discipleship to the Lord ("by this shall all men know if ye are my disciples, if ye have love, one to another") the comments instead center around obedience and allegiance to the living prophet (and, like Highlander, there can be only one at a time; so the fact that Christ is not dead, means we already have a Living Prophet).

   (33)  I am biased, sure, but I think the LDS people are terrific.  They're "my tribe," so-to-speak.  I mean, we try; we serve, we sacrifice, we read the scriptures; we're sincere.  But I have to say, in many ways we are a loveless people because we have been taught to love authority above all else.  (Our obsession shows itself in the way we address our leaders: General Authorities and Area Authority 70s; we love to sit at the feet of The Middle Initial).

   (34)  But I'm wondering why we haven't learned this one lesson, from the Lord Jesus Himself, that authority does not (!) come from a person's priesthood office or title, but from the bonds of love unfeigned?  It is sort of tragic when we think about it, the way we subject ourselves to unrighteous dominion and feel blessed for it.

   (35)  I must have been overly caffeinated when I wrote this post, because I had forgotten saying, "This is NOT the same Church my mother joined over 50 years ago when President David O. McKay was prophet.  Since then the Church has radically changed.  In fact, I would argue it's been radicalized.  In the last generation, the Church has radicalized us into becoming acolytes of the PROPHET."  All stand.

​​​​​​​​​​​​Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 14

   (36)  We looked at several of Judas's attributes (the guy who betrayed Jesus) and learned to beware of those who control the coin purse.  Mammon has a way of corrupting us with "the wages of unrighteousness."  Maybe that's why Christ told his disciples to travel without purse or scrip.

   (37)  If I can be blunt for a moment, who can argue against the fact that we have "ran greedily after the error of Balaam" (Jude 1:11) when we've stashed hundreds of billions of dollars and own enough land to make a feudal lord look like a serf?  Constantine himself would blush at the extent we have profited from Christianity.  General Authorities should not be full-time, paid clergy.  Come on, guys!

​Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 15

   (38)  The "folly of the prophets" that Jeremiah speaks about is the way that false prophets get the people of God "to err" (Jeremiah 23:13).  Far from what we are told in Church about the prophet "never leading the Church astray," we find in the scriptures that it is sorta common.  Just sayin'!

   (39)  One of the biggest "follies" of our times is the idea that "all is well in Zion," when in fact the axe is laid at the root of the tree.  

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 16

   (40) This next one is perhaps my favorite: the way false prophets act like "lords over God's heritage" (1 Pet. 5:2-4).  It occurs to me that Peter would have a lot to say about the way his successors are behaving, like entitled Earls and Dukes in the kingdom of God.  Sheesh.  So much for the greatest among us being the least of all.

   (41)  Christ is our only Master.  We have no obligation to do anything other than what our Master wants.  Let me shout this part: no man can serve two masters.  So whenever the counsel from the Prophet conflicts with the word of Christ, the debate is over: we follow Christ.  When we're told that we'll be blessed for following the prophet, even if his counsel is wrong, we're substituting the prophet for our master.  Yikes.  I wish we would just sustain Christ. 

Would God that all the Lord's people were Prophets: Part 17

​   (42)  I don't like using the word idolatry, but I think it is safe to do so here: we turn the prophet into a Golden Calf when we teach he can't lead us astray, or that he's doctrinally inerrant.  

   (43)  Perhaps the best evidence for how crazy things have become are all of the mental gymnastics we do in the Church: we are fed husks in our meetings and conferences and count our bellies full; we call vanity faith; we have put off the yoke of Christ for the vainglory of "we thank thee O God for a prophet."

​   (44)  Over the past 40 years I've watched what's going on inside and outside of the Church; I've tried to be "quick to observe" and to not be hasty in judgment.  As I've pondered on our situation, I've concluded there's something wrong in the Church when it acts like the West Wing of the Great and Spacious Building.

The Bachelorette, Prophet Edition

Extra credit if you read "The Bachelorette, Prophet Edition," where we go on a date with the prophet stud Zedekiah.

​​The Dating Game: Prophet Edition

And if you're a glutton for punishment, check out "The Dating Game: Prophet Edition" for scintillating dates with prophets Hananiah, Nabi, and Balaam.

So what now?

Patron Saint

In conclusion, I'd like to ask, "Why do members of the Church treat the prophet like he's our Patron Saint?

A Patron Saint is a person whose protection, intercession, and favor is revered by a certain people or place (such as Ireland, whose Patron Saint is St. Patrick).

Because the Church is so . . . umm . . . so American, and so heavily invested in businesses, I thought this would be a good place to share this:

​Patron Saint
a poem

The patron saint of modern religion
must be Saint Henry Ford
 
whose assembly line inspired many
to solve the problem of mass

fabrication. Subsidiary discipleship
rejects custom-crafted faith

in favor of common molds, pieces
fit together like jigsaw

parts, homogeneous and sterilized
(but efficient). Proselytes shaped  

by the solemn assembly
of unionized production 
  
laboring in the central sacrament
of selling more units of the Model T.

Churches thus earned a great commission
spinning pinions, telling cogs which way to turn.

Factories and ribbon cuttings multiplied
as converts congregated in hair nets

performing in jealous zeal
the Ritual of the Conveyor Belt

with robotic arms and hands.
Remember to say thanks

to those captains of industrialized religion
the next time you splurge

on a brand-name bottle
of cold-pressed blood.

St. Ford saved you
considerably on the bottom line.

The End of the World?

In the Parable of the Tares, we learn that "the end of the world" refers to the "destruction of the wicked" (Matt. 13:39, JST).

So the question that is naturally on everyone's mind is: 

   How are the wicked "destroyed?"

This is actually the flip-side of the question we have already addressed, which was "how are the wheat gathered?"

I suppose an easy way to finish this Post would be to just refer you to the example of the city of Ammonihah, whose inhabitants rejected the Lord's servants (Alma and Amulek), and burned the believing women and children on a pyre of scriptures, and cast the believing men out their city.

   But who wants to take the easy way?

"He Will Come Out Against You"

​Amulek warned the folks in Ammonihah (this was his hometown; these were his friends and family he was talking to):

   If ye will cast out the righteous
   from among you, then
   [notice the "if/then" structure,
   and notice the triggering clause]
   will not the Lord stay his hand;
   but in his fierce anger
   he will come out against you.

(Alma 10:23)

That's an awfully poetic way for Amulek to put it: "the Lord will come out against you."  But what does that actually mean?  How does the Lord "come out against" the wicked? Doesn't the Father send rain on the unjust as well as the just?

A couple of interesting events transpired to fulfill Amulek's words.  "And the earth shook mightily, and the walls of the prison were rent in twain, so that they fell to the earth; and the chief judge, and the lawyers, and priests, and teachers, who smote upon Alma and Amulek, were slain by the fall thereof" (Alma 14:27).

   Ooof.

Stay away from collapsing concrete, just a bit of friendly advice, as the wicked in 3 Nephi 8 learned when "many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate" (3 Nephi 8:14).

   Ouch.

But you probably want to skip to the gritty part; okay, okay, there's plenty of carnage to go around, I assure you.

   The people of Ammonihah
   were destroyed; yea,
   every living soul
   of the Ammonihahites
   was destroyed, and also
   their great city, which they said
   God could not destroy,
   because of its greatness.

(Alma 16:9)

Well, how specifically was the city destroyed?  I mean, it wasn't literally God smiting people, giving them all heart attacks or blasting them with lightning bolts, was it?

So while the scriptures ascribe judgment ultimately to God, someone else is doing the dirty work. 

Mormon solves this puzzle for us in a stunning declaration; read this verse twice:

   The judgments of God
   will overtake the wicked;
   and it is by the wicked
   that the wicked are punished.

(Mormon 4:5)

Ah, so we see it was the Lamanites who descended upon Ammonihah and slew the people, not God.  

God's judgment in this case was not dished out directly; after all, God has a heart full of blessings; He doesn't delight in destruction at all (see Moses 7).

But the wicked?  They love it; they love to play with matches and to behave badly.

Dwindle, Dwindle, Light Star

"But Tim," someone says, "is that all there is to it?  The wicked are going to blow each other up?  Go full-on-Mad-Max and annihilate civilization like the Jaredites?"

Good question; you see, 9 times out of 10 when we discuss the destruction of the wicked we're thinking of Second-Coming-level-fire-and-brimstone stuff; we're imagining apocalyptic-grade-glory nuking the sorry sons-of-balaam to ash.

​But listen, I'm not worried about that; no need to lose sleep over the earth being baptized with fire, because by then it will be too late to do anything about it. 

There's nothing we can do to change the coming eschatological exclamation point (!) that will finish this age of the world.  What concerns us in the here-and-now are the commas (,) that punctuate our lives and provide a space in which we can repent before the end of all things.  

Remember, there are more ways to destroy a people than just natural calamities and pestilence and famine and the sword.

After all, we're all going to give up the ghost soon enough ― we're lucky to get 100 years on this earth.  So death is already inevitable for us all.  What good is wiping us off the face of the earth when we're already at death's door?

No, no; put your armies and navies away for a moment; forget about blood and horror.  Instead, get out your False Priests who oppress.

Very good, now we're seeing the most effective way for the devil to "destroy" a people on both sides of the veil (that's the real prize) is to get them to "dwindle in unbelief."

Just think: isn't it surprising that the Book of Mormon sets up the entire narrative of the Nephite civilization in terms of "dwindling?"  There must be an important lesson for us to learn.

The angel said to Nephi:

   It is better that one man
   should perish than that
   a nation should dwindle
   and perish in unbelief.
   
​(1 Nephi 4:13)

What in the world was the angel trying to say here; how does a nation "dwindle" in unbelief? 

And more importantly, does "perish" refer to something more than just temporal death, but to a people's eternal condition?

Well, there's lots of "dwindling" in the Book of Mormon:

   1.  The Jews dwindled in unbelief (1 Nephi 10:11).

   2.  The Lamanites dwindled in unbelief (2 Nephi 26:15).

   3.  The Nephites dwindled in unbelief (3 Nephi 21:5).

   4.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has dwindled in unbelief . . . .

Wait.  Is that true?  Has the Church dwindled; is it dwindling?  

Notice that dwindling is always associated with . . . wait for it . . . unbelief.

Is there "unbelief" in the Church?  ​Well, didn't the Lord tell the early Saints that our "minds have been darkened because of unbelief" (D&C 84:54)?

Unbelief-able!

"Where's the Be[li]ef?"

The verb "to dwindle" means to diminish.  It could be in size, but it also refers to strength or amount.

In spiritual terms, "dwindling" refers to the gradual dimming of Christ's Spirit.

This is how Mormon described the way it happened among the Nephites in his day:

   Because of their unbelief
   and idolatry . . .
   [oh, that is interesting, to see how Mormon connects unbelief with idolatry; do we have a problem with idolatry?  Is there a golden calf in our LDS tent today, to wit: the veneration and elevation of the prophet and the temple above all else?]
   the Spirit of the Lord
   hath already ceased
   to strive with their fathers;
   and they are without Christ
   and God in the world;
   and they are driven about
   as chaff before the wind.

(Mormon 5:15-16)

So that, my friends, is how to destroy a people:

   Unbelief + idalotry = Without Christ

But just because a people "dwindle" and are "destroyed" doesn't mean they have to perish for all eternity, not yet! 

   There's hope.

What is the Solution?

As Clark Burt likes to say, we have to offer people "the remedy."  So I can't end the post without providing a solution.

How can we avoid perishing?  Nephi tells us:

   The words of the righteous
   shall be written, and the prayers
   of the faithful shall be heard,
   and all those who have dwindled
   in unbelief shall not be forgotten.

   For those who shall be destroyed
   shall speak unto them
   out of the ground.

(2 Nephi 26:15-16)

See the promise of restoration and redemption?  Christ is revealed through "the words of the righteous."

   The word of the Lord is truth; 
   Whatsoever is truth is light, 
   Whatsoever is light is spirit, 
   Even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

(D&C 84:45)

So by connecting the dots we learn, "His words are Him!"

   1.  Christ invites us to "partake of his salvation," which He "hath given it free for all men" (2 Nephi 26:27).  * Pay 10% tithing*

   2.  Christ seeks to "persuade all men to repentance" (2 Nephi 26:27).  *Follow the prophet*

   3.  Christ wants us to "partake of his goodness," which is offered to everyone; "none are forbidden" (2 Nephi 26:28).  *Hold a current temple recommend* 

   4.  In light of these truths (#1-3), Nephi transitions to Christ's commandment "that there shall be no priestcrafts" (2 Nephi 26:29).  *No recommend for you if you don't pay us tithing*

   5.  The fullest expression of Christ's Spirit is manifest in love.  "All men should have charity, which charity is love" (2 Nephi 26:30).  *Stay on the Covenant Path and you'll be fine*

   Part 1: An Enemy Hath Done This
   Part 2: An Enemy Hath Done This
   Part 3: An Enemy Hath Done This
   Part 4: An Enemy Hath Done This
   Part 5: An Enemy Hath Done This
   Part 6: An Enemy Hath Done This
   Part 7: An Enemy Hath Done This
   Part 8: An Enmey Hath Done This
   Part 9: An Enemy Hath Done This

An Introduction to Destruction: A Brief but Illuminating Discussion Among Devils
​
   Cast:  

Hogglesbottom, a low-level but eager devil-trainee, attired in military gear and grenades, his generous waistline boasting hundreds of shotgun shells to match his sparkling personality.

Voldermorianton, a seasoned middle-manager who supervises new recruits at the Kishkumen School for Aspiring Mahans, somewhat underworld-weary and possibly having an existential crisis.

   Dialogue:

[In the Kishkumen Cafeteria, after finishing their lunch of undying worms]

Hogglesbottom [enthusiastically]:  Time to blow up some tasty Tares!

Voldermorianton [checking his Apple Watch]:  No.  There will be no blowing stuff up today.

Hogglesbottom [disappointed]:  But just look at those tempting Tares!  Isn't it the end of the world?  I've got my matches sharpened and my teeth lit―

Voldermorianton:  I believe you have those mixed up.

Hogglesbottom [petulantly]:  I want the world to burn!  Boom boom!  Aren't we supposed to be destroying the wicked?

Voldermorianton [sighing]:  My dear devil, you really are a neanderthal.

Hogglesbottom [nodding his agreement].

Voldermorianton:  No need to go full-on-Sodom-and-Gomorrah.  Now, now; these days we have a better way of doing business.  Just as effective, I assure you ― and without having to pull ash out of my goatee for the next hundred years.

Hogglesbottom [jumping up and down]:  Tell me!  Tell me!

Voldermorianton:  You see, what good is it to kill all those humans?  Good grief, look around: this place is bursting as it is.  And they'll be dead before we know it anyway.  No, no: we can stick it to the Enemy ― all the while letting the humans do our dirty work for us.

Hogglesbottom [confused]: How?

Voldermorianton:  Remember: we're not concerned with just any people, silly serpent; we are in the business of "destroy[ing] the saints of God" (1 Nephi 13:9).  Our job is to target those who call themselves God's people.  Haven't you been studying your Book of Mormon with Professor Coriantumr in Secret Combinations 101, like I told you?

Hogglesbottom [abashed]: I can't get through the Isaiah Chapters.

Voldermorianton [rolling his eyes]: If we went around killing people, we might be creating martyrs of the saints; and their reward would be assured by the Enemy.  Where's the profit in that?  So don't be hasty, my precious pony, to burn down the world.  Why?  Because before the fire we must purge the salt and make it lose its savor.

Hogglesbottom [shivering with delight]: How?  How do we destroy the salt, Master?

Voldermorianton [pleased]: Now you're understanding.  The way to pollute the people of God is easier than you think, my precocious puppy.  We corrupt them from the inside-out.

Hogglesbottom [searching for a pencil]: "Wait, let me write this down.  This is good stuff; better than boom boom!"

Voldermorianton:  In order to destroy the people of God, we must get them to "cast out the prophets, and the saints, and stone them, and slay them" (2 Nephi 26:3).  You see my stripling snail, we have to turn the people of God against the messengers sent by the Enemy.  It's that simple!

Hogglesbottom [scratching his armpit]: Simple?  How are we going to get the people of God to persecute the Enemy's messengers?

Voldermorianton:  Divide and conquer; by getting them to play at building Zion (so they feel good with themselves) on the one hand; while on the other getting them to build up churches unto themselves that actually prevent Zion from arising (not that they'll realize it, of course).

Hogglesbottom [eyeing a worm on his plate hungrily]:  But won't the Enemy's messengers alert them to the ruse?

Voldermortianton [laughing]:  Oh, you simple slug, you.  You really haven't been studying the Book of Mormon, have you?  I'm going to have a little chat with Professor Coriantumr.  But to answer your question, the trick is to get them to "receive [a man], and say that he is a prophet [seer and revelator]; yea, [they] will lift him up [to preside over them], and [they] will give unto him of [their] substance [in the form of tithing]; [they] will give unto him of [their] gold, and of [their] silver, and [they] will clothe him with costly apparel [from ZCMI]" (Helaman 13:27-28).

Hogglesbottom:  But why?  Why would a people, who claim to follow God, do all of that for someone who is not preaching the Enemy's gospel, but another?

Voldermorianton:  "Because (1) he speaketh flattering words unto [them], and (2) he saith that all is well [in Zion, yea, Zion prospereth], then (3) [they] will not find fault with him" (Helaman 13:28).

Hogglesbottom [tapping his pencil to his horned forehead]: So the Enemy's messenger would do the opposite?  He or she would (1) speak the truth without hypocrisy; and (2) warn the people that much was wrong in Zion?

Voldermorianton:  Yes!  Now you see at last the great truth of it: the way we destroy the saints of God is to get them to "seek all manner of ways to destroy [the Enemy's messengers]; yea, [they] will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that [their] deeds are evil" (Helaman 13:26).

Hogglesbottom:  But don't the people, deep down, sense what is happening?  Won't they see the idolatry; I mean, how can they not see that they have filled their hearts with the deceitfulness of riches, and the cares of the world, and the precepts of men?

Voldermorianton [smiling, revealing two sharp fangs]:  No, my cuddlable cankerworm; they do not see.  Why?  Because they have made those vices you mentioned the greatest virtues of their religion!  They amass wealth and call it prudence; they oppress the widow and call it faithful sacrifice; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men and call it truth; they transfigure the word of God and call it a prophet's prerogative.  And despite their steepled temples and carefully-pronounced covenants, they draw near unto the Enemy with their lips but their hearts are far from Him.

Hogglesbottom [a wicked gleam in his eye]: I've got it: let us go down ― er, I mean, up ― and have them introduce an Oath of Vengeance in their temples, making a mockery of God!  How delicious it will be, having them swear an Oath to avenge the Prophet's blood when it is written,  "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19); and when the Enemy has told them, "Swear not at all" (Matt. 5:34) and to "love your enemies."  How delicious, indeed.

Voldermorianton [approvingly]: Yes, yes.  I think you'll do just fine here, my voluptuous viper.

My Son Learns Some Legalese

​​The other night my son came into my study as I was working.  He handed me a crayon.  "Daddy, can you write your signature?"

"My signature?" I said, confused.  "On what?"

"Nothing; just write it on this piece of paper," he said.

"Umm.  It's blank.  Why do you need my signature?" I said suspiciously.

"No reason."

"Okay," I said, playing along.  I wrote my name and handed the paper back to him.

"Thanks!" he said and ran off. 

Not long after he returned holding my cut-out signature that he had taped to another piece of paper upon which was written:

"DO WHATEVER I SAY AND ALWAYS AGREE WITH ME. /s/ Tim Merrill."

He looked triumphant.  "Now you have to do whatever I say!" he said gleefully, doing a happy dance.  He really thought he had me; and I really hated to burst his sweet, innocent bubble.

(Chances were he wanted me to agree to more video-game-time.)

"Well, peculiar thing about this document," I said, stealing a line from Lucy.  "It wasn't ever notarized."

"God, Can You Write Your Signature on This Blank Piece of Paper?"

When I started this Series about the Wheat and Tares I was not expecting there to be so much to say; it was just a simple Parable, after all.

Yet to my surprise the more we dig, the more we uncover; and if we keep digging at this rate we may end up all the way to China (by which I mean, the Wheat in the Far East; that will be a harvest unlike any we've yet seen).

Because this post talks about priesthood principles, I started with the anecdote about my son: he acted like we do, believing we can somehow trap God; bind God into a contractual arrangement in which He has to do what we want because, well, He must be a kind of djinn and we have a signed document or something! (What Latter-day Saints call "covenants" or "the priesthood.")

At least, that is the sense I get from quotes like these:

"Every man and every woman who participates in priesthood ordinances and who makes and keeps covenants with God has direct access to the power of God. ... All those who have made a covenant with God have access to a special kind of love and mercy. ... In the Church we travel the Covenant Path ... that creates a special love."

(Russell M. Nelson, "The Everlasting Covenant," Liahona, October 2022)

Well, aren't we special!  Considering this, is it any wonder we have no need for Catholic relics and shrouds and bits of bone stuffed in the apse from a dead saint's femur when we have such mighty powers with which to control God?

But our unique brand of witchcraft doesn't use salt circles and pentagrams and butchered chicken blood; instead, we use stained glass and earth tones and plush fabric and soft voices dressed in robes and aprons with new names and handsigns and tokens . . . which are a much more refined way to harness God to our bidding.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.  President Nelson is carving out a new form of Carnal Security.  It is not new, really: it bears a striking resemblance to the Calvinist doctrine of Irrestible Grace which teaches God saves a "special" group He chosen. 

In our case, the conditions of salvation are being adjusted to conform to our status and not our repentance.

And before someone quotes D&C 82:10, let's look at what the verse actually says:

   I, the Lord, am bound
   when ye do what I say;
   but when ye do not
   what I say,
   ye have no promise.

(D&C 82:10)

See, the only person who can "bind" God is God Himself.  Let me render the verse as it is taught in our meetings:

   I, the Lord, am bound
   when ye do what ye say;
   and when ye do not
   what I say,
   ye shall still have the promise,
   apparantely, because ye are
​   so special.

(D&C 82:10, 2023 ed.)

Despite our best efforts to rein in God as if He were a Clydesdale horse pulling our precepts behind Him, God is untamable; He is wild and unbroken, as a lion roareth (Joel 3:16).

And while He always keeps His word, God cannot be put into the service of the creeds of men.

Sifting Wheat in the Backseat

In Part 7 we learned we shouldn't be too hasty in casting the "Tares" out of our congregations because we may very well be losing the Church's Wheat.

(We should ask ourselves whether the declining membership numbers are a result of the Church "cleansing the inner vessel" by cracking down, or are a sign the branch is hanging precariously on the vine, withering from malnourishment.)

I wrote in Part 7, "Because the Wheat is gathered first (before the destruction of the wicked), we need to identify the mechanism by which the Wheat finds its way to the barn.

"Do the faithful call an Uber and wait for the angels to show up, curbside, in a black limousine?  Do we ride horses aflame with heaven's fire bareback to Kolob?  Do we build an Ark out of gopherwood and watch the forecast?

"As complex as it may appear at first, it is not rocket science; because in the end, the righteous are always gathered in only two ways:

   1.  The righteous are cast out; and/or

   2.  The righteous are led away."
                   __________

Now the time has come to look at a particular verse in the Doctrine and Covenants that sheds a lot of knowledge on this process. 

So before we start cracking a few eschatological eggs in discussing the "destruction" of the Tares at the end of the world (I know, I am excited to get scrambling, too), we first need to answer the question:

"What is the mechanism by which the Wheat find their way to the barn?"

Wanted: 144,000 High Priests; Must Travel

​Sometimes a verse of scripture jumps off the page and gives you goosebumps. 

The verse quoted below was the kernel from which this Series sprang; I've been waiting to dissect it with you.  It encapsulates, I think, Joseph Smith's vision for how the gathering would take place.

Here it is:

Q. What are we to understand by sealing the one hundred and forty-four thousand, out of all the tribes of Israel—twelve thousand out of every tribe?

A. We are to understand that those who are sealed are high priests, ordained unto the holy order of God, to administer the everlasting gospel; for they are they who are ordained out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, by the angels to whom is given power over the nations of the earth, to bring as many as will come to the church of the Firstborn.

(D&C 77:11)

Ooookay; there's a lot to unpack here.  This is gonna be fun.

Sealed?  Ordained?  Angels Who?

First let's look at the qualifications of the 144,000:

1.  "Those who are sealed"

Is there a difference between being sealed and being ordained?  The scriptures say Jesus was "sealed" by God the Father (even though He wasn't ordained in the Jewish levitical priesthood).

   The Son of man
   shall give unto you
   [the meat which endureth 
   unto everlasting life]:
   for him hath God the Father
   sealed.

(John 6:27)

Who sealed the Son of man?  Who seals us?  And what does it even mean to be "sealed" to God?  

   Now he which stablisheth us
   with you in Christ,
   and hath anointed us,
   is God;
   Who hath also sealed us.

(2 Cor. 1:21-22)

What does it mean to be "anointed" by God?  And how does this relate to the "Holy Spirit of Promise?"

   In whom ye also trusted [Christ],
   after that ye heard
   the word of truth,
   the gospel of your salvation:
   in whom also after that ye believed,
   ye were sealed with that
   holy Spirit of promise.

(Ephesians 1:13)

Now, just when my head is about to explode like a Garbage Pail Kid ("Mushroom Cloud Tim"), we find this fascinating statement by King Benjamin, at the very end of his magnum opus in which he gave his people a new name and a new covenant, making them sons and daughters of Christ, where he said:

   Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent,
   may seal you his, that you may
   be brought to heaven, that ye may
   have everlasting salvation
   and eternal life, through the wisdom,
   and power, and justice, and mercy
   of him who created all things,
   in heaven and in earth,
   who is God above all.

(Mosiah 5:15)

(FYI: being "brought to heaven" doesn't necessarily mean after we die.  Just ask the Three Nephites.) 

What's really interesting about all of this is that we haven't seen anything about Church officiators; being "sealed" to God isn't something we find on the Covenant Path being dished up.

If that sounds brash, let me assure you I am not being glib.  The alarm bells are ringing 'Fire! Fire!' We must douse the flames before they consume the entire boat, or we must evacuate. 

The preaching of carnal security ("teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"), which we find being correlated from top-down in the Church, will prove its utter demise.  

   Unless we repent.

According to the scriptures above, being sealed to Christ is a function of the Spirit; it is a matter of the sheep knowing their Shepherd and conversing with the Lord through the veil.

I'm not saying the Church doesn't have an important role to play; but in terms of being sealed to Christ among the 144,000, you'll notice the earthly Church hasn't trademarked the conditions of salvation; we won't find "Church of the Firstborn" printed anywhere on the business cards of the Q12; and thankfully Intellectual Reserve, Inc. has no rights to the management of the kingdom of heaven.

   So . . . 

Christ really, truly, employeth no servant at the gate (2 Nephi 9:41).

2.  ". . . are high priests ordained unto the holy order of God"

​​Ah, now we see the term "ordained."  So those who are sealed to God are ordained by God?

"Ordination" has a lot of baggage, I know.  But it looks like we're talking here about something quite different than the run-of-the-mill, priesthood-office-ordination-in-the-Church-by-the-laying-on-of-hands business (Article of Faith 5).

I want to suggest that ordination into the Holy Order of God requires heavenly administrators.  According to Joseph Smith, the high priesthood comes:
   
   not by man,
   nor the will of men;
   neither by father nor mother. . . 
   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 . . . with an oath
   by himself.

(JST Genesis 14:27-30)

So when my neighbor is called as a counselor in the bishopric and is ordained by the laying on of hands ​to be a high priest, the wording of that ordination is limited to a certain space-time: he becomes a high priest "in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  That's an entirely different matter than being ordained by God unto the Holy Order.

As if there could be no doubt about it, Joseph said point-blank:

   All the prophets had
   the Melchizedek Priesthood
   and were ordained
   by God himself.

(Joseph Smith, TPJS, 181)

Let's put a fine point on this, shall we?  I would like to propose that priesthood power and authority are a function of being "connected with the powers of heaven."

This is not an abstraction; it is, in fact, describing having a relationship with those who dwell in everlasting burnings.

(If you wish to read more about the priesthood, please see "Now I Have a Priesthood: Part 1.")

3.  ". . . to administer the everlasting gospel . . . "

How do the 144,000 "administer the everlasting gospel?"

Let me share something Clark Burt wrote about what it means to "administer" the gospel, since it is the best explanation I have found anywhere:

"In the Book of Abraham we read, 'And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same (what is the same?-- greater happiness and peace and rest); having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers' (Abr 1:2).

"This is the true order of the Priesthood to bless the lives of others through the righteousness of God and by virtue of the knowledge given us by God. These are the only keys of the priesthood.

"It is no wonder that '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).

"So priesthood keys are not having authority to administer (as in presiding and organizing and setting policies), but to administer the gospel of Jesus Christ. And anyone with priesthood power (righteousness of God and knowledge from God) can administer the gospel ... through His words. "

(Clark Burt, "Notes on Priesthood & Priesthood Keys," December 19, 2021, Given by the Finger of God; emphasis added.)

So, does administrative shuffling manifest God's power?  Does making agendas for Ward Council with pretty fonts and creating organizational efficiencies and quoting the Handbook reveal the glory of God?

I think not.  The glory of God, after all, is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth.

To administer the gospel, then, is to impart the word, or Spirit, or light of truth, found in Christ.

4.  ". . . they are ordained out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, by the angels to whom is given power over the nations of the earth . . ."

​A lot could be said about the universality and multi-cultural background of these 144,000.  But I want to focus instead on the question, "Who does the ordaining?"  Not my father, or neighbor, or Bishop Jones, apparently. 

What's this about "by the angels"?

Angels can include, I think, mortals, because Joseph Smith changed "angels" to "messengers sent of heaven" in the JST.

In the Book of Revelation, we read about seven angels who are given power (bowls or vials) over the earth and its peoples, consisting of certain foreordained judgments.

These might be the "seven angels who stand ready and enter before the glory of the Lord of spirits" (Tobit 12:15).

In any event, the important thing to know is that the gathering is going to be orchestrated from on high.

5.  ". . . to bring as many as will come to the church of the Firstborn."

Here we are!  We made it at last: this was the main reason I wanted to go down this rabbit hole. 

What does all of this have to do with the Wheat and the Tares?

Well, this explains something I find quite odd; it introduces a curve-ball to our narrative.

We learn that the angels are NOT gathering the Wheat in order to bring them into the Church (wait . . . what?!). 

No, the angels and the 144,000 who gather the Wheat to the barn are in fact bringing the Wheat into . . . the Church of the Firstborn.

Talk about a plot twist!

This means that the Church's current missionary efforts are preparatory; everything that the Church is doing is preliminary. 

Why?  Because we must all matriculate to the Church of the Firstborn at some point.

   To have the privilege
   of receiving the mysteries
   of the kingdom of heaven,
   to have the heavens opened
   unto them, to commune with
   the general assembly and
   church of the Firstborn,
   and to enjoy the communion
   and presence of God the Father,
   and Jesus the mediator
   of the new covenant.

(D&C 107:19)

You see, a person might have the rank of "apostle" in the Church; but what does that tell us about their standing in the Church of the Firstborn? 

   Nothing.

​The rank of apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has all the prestige of a cafeteria lunch lady; which I mean as a compliment.

The apostles ARE lunch ladies; they are supposed to feed us and nourish us with the good word of God.

And then, after we've filled our bellies, we go back to class and are instructed from on High by our Teacher.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is merely a pass-through; a school master.  It is elementary, not secondary school; going to Church is a form of attending Primary for all of us.

   This Comforter is the promise
   which I give unto you
   of eternal life,
   even the glory of
   the celestial kingdom;
   Which glory is that of the
   church of the Firstborn,
   even of God, the holiest of all,
   through Jesus Christ his Son.

(D&C 88:4-5)

I am hoping that this Post will now shed some new light on the familar words, below, to be seen through a new lens, regarding the Citizens of Zion and the New Jerusalem (i.e. the Celestial):

   They are they who received 
   the testimony of Jesus . . .
   [from whom?]
   and received the Holy Spirit
   by the laying on of the hands of him
   [whose hands?]   
   who is ordained and sealed 
   unto this power . . . 
   and are sealed by the Holy Spirit
   of promise, which the Father
   [who?]
   sheds forth upon all those . . . 
   who are the church of the Firstborn
   [which church?].

(D&C 76:51-54)

Graduation is set.  Time to order your cap and gown and apron.

"Happiness is the object and design of our existence."

   Or is it?

You've probably heard this 'happiness' quote before; it is attributed to Joseph Smith and comes from the so-called "Happiness Letter."

​Over the years the Happiness Letter has been used as an apologetic for the Church's practice of polygamy (it was written to Nancy Ridgon).  But this Post is not about polygamy.

No, I want to address the most famous part of the letter that we frequently hear in Church:  "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is."

Hold on; how gullible are we?  Let's think through the logical implications of this doctrine; let's dissect it and see what's inside of it before we jump on the bandwagon.

Because . . . what if Joseph didn't write the Happiness Letter?

   What if we've all been duped?

(Copy of History of the Church 5:134)

History Sleuths

Well, this is embarrassing: the compilers of the History of the Church included the Happiness Letter in Volume 5, pages 134-135, attributing it to Joseph Smith. 

The embarassing part is the fascinating caveat the editors included (no, this is not the Babylon Bee; I am serious).  Take a look at how they editorialized the Letter:

"It is not positively known what occasioned the writing of this essay; but when it is borne in mind that at this time the new law of marriage for the Church — marriage for eternity, including plurity of wives under some circumstances — was being introduced by the Prophet, it is very likely that the article was written with a view of applying the principles here expounded to the conditions created by introducing-said marriage system."

Well, we learn a couple of interesting things from this editorialization.  Foremost, we learn a lot about the editors' bias.  Remember, the History of the Church was first published in 1858 during the golden age of plural marriage in Deseret.  So of course they made it all about polygamy even though the Letter never mentions it!

Secondly we learn that no one knows the actual provenance of this letter that was apparently written in 1842.
​
So how did the Happiness Letter get attached to Joseph Smith?

Hello, Mr. John C. Bennett, so good of you to join us.

Doubling Down

This doesn't explain how the Happiness Letter became so famous and gained the hearts of the members of the Church.  I mean, who even reads the History of the Church (except for boring history buffs)?

We must look elsewhere; but if I were a betting man, I would guess the Letter ended up in the seminal work of Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (1976).

Aha!  Indeed, it did.  We find the letter on page 255-256 of TPJS.

And the rest is history.  The quote is taught in General Conference; it is found in correlated Church lesson manuals; you will hear it at BYU devotionals and see it peppering the Ensign and Liahona.

After all, the Latter-day Saints are such a happy people, aren't we?  The Happiness Letter has almost become our mantra.  We must prove to the world how true our Church is by the smiles painted on our faces.  No one can be as happy as we are, when joy is a fruit of the Spirit, right?

And since this gem is attributed to Joseph Smith and is quoted in the approved curriculum, it has been swallowed like a camel.  But has anyone paused and asked the question, "Is it true?"

Well, according to The Joseph Smith Papers, the answer is . . . maaaaybe?

Joseph Smith Papers to the Rescue?

Last night I read the Happiness Letter and was unable to tell whether Joseph had written it based on the language of the Letter (which sounded to me like the Prophet but I couldn't be sure).

A lot (I mean, a lot) of quotes attributed to the Prophet are probably not his.  

For example, as a missionary in Paris, France, we were required to memorize and quote at every Zone Conference the following quote by the Prophet:

"The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done."

(History of the Church, 4:540)

I would wager those are not Joseph's words (though they might capture his sentiments).  According to those who study such things, the vocabulary and syntax in that quote are not consistent with Joseph Smith's parlance. 

But you know who LOVED to use the word "calumny?"  W.W. Phelps. 

Anyway, last night as I pondered and prayed about the contents of the Happiness Letter, I asked myself if it mattered if Joseph Smith wrote it; after all, if the ideas are true, who cares who spoke them?

Since this isn't a true crime podcast, I am not going to hide the ball from you.  I'll tell you what The Joseph Smith Papers says about the Happiness Letter.

(I love the commentary in The Jospeh Smith Papers.  For the comedy, I mean.)

Now, the editors of the JSP didn't have enough confidence in the authenticity of the Happiness Letter to include it in Volume 9 of Documents, proper.  So that alone tells us the provenance is sketchy.

​But because of the Church's historical investment in Joseph's polygamy and the ideas contained in the Letter, the editors did something unusual: they stuffed the Letter into an Appendix.

Hmmm.  Editors today can't get away with exposing their bias as easily as they did in 1858. 

Perhaps they think we are easily fooled?

​Appendix: Letter to Nancy Rigdon, circa Mid-April 1842

Here are 10 Facts we know for certain about the Happiness Letter:

   1.  The Happiness Letter was published on 19 August 1842 in the Sangamo Journal in Springfield, Illinois.

   2.  The letter was sent to the newspaper by John C. Bennett as part of a larger correspondece Bennett wrote.

   3.  This was John C. Bennett's sixth letter to the Sangamo Journal attacking Joseph Smith.

   4.  Bennett had been excommunicated several months earlier for sexual promiscuity.

   5.  No one has ever discovered the original letter; we only have what the newspaper printed from Bennett's letter.

   6.  Bennett copied the letter and sent it the newspaper as corroborating evidence of his claim Joseph had tried to woo Nancy Ridgon as a plural wife.

   7.  The only thing connecting Joseph Smith to the letter was Bennett's statement to the newspaper identifying Joseph Smith as the author and Nancy Ridgon as the recipient.

   8.  The letter was undated, unaddressed, and unsigned.

   9.  Bennett later said, when he published his History of the Saints (not to be confused with the History of the Church) that the letter was given to him by Francis M. Higbee (you probably recognize the name: Higbee was an editor of the Nauvoo Expositor and hated Joseph Smith; on Higbee's oath, the warrant to arrest Joseph was issued that led him to Carthage Jail).

   10.  Joseph's brother, William, as the editor of the Nauvoo Wasp, denied the letter was Joseph's and printed a statement from Sidney Rigdon stating, "Mr. Smith denied to me the authorship of that letter."

Now pretend you're a Church historian.  How would you characterize this letter?

   Oh boy, here we go.

Dishonor the Prophet

You know, for claiming Joseph Smith was such a great prophet and all, the Church sure makes him out to be an awful and serial liar.

   Wo unto the liar,
   for he shall be thrust
   down to hell.

(2 Nephi 9:34)

But it's okay for Joseph to lie, isn't it, because "whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is."  

How terribly convenient!  What a wonderful hermeneutic with which to justify any sort of sinful behavior and credit God for it.  No better trump card.

And so the Church, with what I find to be supreme irony by asking its members if they strive to be honest in all their dealings, makes Joseph the poster child of "lying for the Lord."

Here is what the Church says about the Happiness Letter:

   a.  "JS's authoriship of this letter is uncertain."

   b.  "Contemporaneous evidence discredits other allegations in Bennett's Sangamo Journal letters."

   c.  "Some debate exists among historians about the authenticity of this purported JS letter."

Case closed, right?  If you were on a jury, would you convict Joseph of writing this letter, based on the evidence?

I didn't think so.  

Yet the Church Historian's Office isn't so sure.  They included the letter in their Appendix and give it credence.

​Just in case, you know, Joseph really was a liar.

"Whatever God Requires is Right"

The notion that "whatever God requires is right" is appealing.  It just makes sense, doesn't it?

I mean, God can't be wrong, can He?  If God is requiring it, then it must be "good" since He only works for the good of His children.

But . . . but.  This isn't about God at all.  Surprise!  It never really was.  It is about getting others to do what you want them to do, using God as your wing-man.  This is about who gets to speak for God.

If the Catholic Pope told you God wanted you to commit adultery and created a ritual to make it official, promising you eternal life if you obeyed, would you? 

Well, that's not a good example unless you're Catholic.  Let's say the President of the Church called you into the temple and told you that there's a secret, higher ordinance you need to receive to be saved . . . would you believe him?

Mentally, when most members of the Church hear this quote, they're thinking, "Whatever the prophet says is God's will, so it must be right."  Well, that changes things.

Because people argue over what God thinks is right and wrong all the time; even prophets do not always agree; and we have seen prophets be wrong in the past (think: November 2015 Policy of Exclusion).

So when someone says, "Whatever God requires is right," we should be asking, "Who gets to decide whether it is God requiring it, or someone (or something) else?"

God gets blamed for a lot of nonsense.  It is the #1 way we take His name in vain; leaders do it when they teach for doctrine the commandments of men.

So the real question is how do we know whether something is "right?"  How do we know if something comes (in fact) from "God?"

Let me tweak the quote in order to make my point:

"Whatever God requires is right" 

   * should be rendered *

"Whatever is right is what God requires."

Do you see the subtle difference?

Come Now, Let us Reason Together

We have certain physical and spiritual faculties that allow us to discern whether something is of God or whether something is right.

The problem, perhaps, is that we don't exercise our ability to reason very much anymore because once an authority figure has spoken, "the thinking has been done."  The science is settled.  Sit down.

So our spiritual brains have atrophied in the presence of hive-mind. 

It shocks me all the time because the scriptures present a God who is quite willing to have a discussion with us; it is not a one-way street.  He's talkative and approachable; just think of the Lord on the Road to Emmaus spending the day chatting about the scriptures with some friends.

I love Job's declaration:

   I would speak to the Almighty,
   and I desire to reason with God.

(Job 13:3)

But when we go around proclaiming "whatever God requires is right," I wonder if we're opening ourselves to being deceived, what with all the seducing spirits and deceiving devils abroad.

There are instances we've seen, tragic choices that have been made, by people who believe they are doing what God "requires" (such as in the case of the Lafferty murders).

A lot of harmful, evil things have been done in the name of "God" ― things that are objectively, eternally wrong!

A New Year

Over the break I collated my posts from 2022 into a book and noticed the volume of words had grown:

   2020 - roughly 95,000 words
   2021 -  roughly 95,000 words
   2022 - roughtly 150,000 words

(As they say at the buffet: quantity over quality.)

To ring in the New Year I wanted to share my first fruits of 2023 with you.  I have a sense the coming year will "unveil" many things.  I can't wait!

Unveil

Should I see another summer
sharing snow with valley streams
that stretch across the timberline 
as if lines held no meaning
between waters flowing
bubbling their blessing
upon mountain feet
 
―how beautiful
remembering
                                
                              health to thy navel

Should memory
turn a blanket of thatch
waiting for spring’s tenderness
and sleep come to my dew-imbued
lashes as a common poorwill
laid against its resting-time
concealed by the stone
of flightless wings
 
―how soft the silk feels
against my mind

                            put on thy garments
 
Should I newly dressed live no more
I will live
to behold the moon’s unveiling:
I will live
a breast apart from her bosom
not alone and forsaken
by sister-sounds and children playing
but among their bundled sheaves
 
―now it is returning
flooding back to me:
the taste of colostrum
 
       oh! thy milk
 
                       is marrow in my bones