Fun Times

A primary president, a high councilor, and a bishop sat on the front row of an airplane during a flight that was hijacked. When the hijackers' demands were refused, they threatened to shoot the passengers, starting with the first row.

The primary president asked for one last wish: to sing her favorite primary song. The hijacker said that would be fine.

The high councilor requested that after the song he be allowed to stand and give the talk he had prepared to give in sacrament meeting that next Sunday.

The hijacker agreed, then turned to the bishop. The bishop motioned for the hijacker to come closer and whispered in his ear, "Please shoot me after the song."

"Abraham rejoiced, saying, Now I have a priesthood."

On the day Joseph Smith organized the Church of Christ, he received these words:

   [Joseph] Being inspired
   of the Holy Ghost
   to lay the foundation
   thereof [the church],
   and to build it up
   unto the most holy faith.

(D&C 21:2)

What is the difference between the church being built up into "the most holy faith" as opposed to the church being built up "unto the most holy faith?"  And speaking of The Most Holy Faith . . . which "faith" is that?

   Which church [Church of Christ]
   was organized and established
   in the year of your Lord
   eighteen hundred and thirty,
   in the fourth month,
   and on the sixth day of the month
   which is called April.

(D&C 21:3)

Wow!  That is specific.  We could set our watches to it. 

Why make such a big deal about the date of inception of the church?  This reminds me of something Joseph said, "This is good logic. . . . As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end." (Joseph Smith, "King Follett Discourse", April 7, 1844.)

​Contrast the beginning of the church with something else:

   This high priesthood
   being after the order
   of his Son, which order
   was from the foundation
   of the world; or in other words,
   being without beginning
   of days or end of years,
   being prepared from eternity
   to all eternity.

(Alma 13:7)

So we can make some logical conclusions here:

   1.  Priesthood existed before the organization of the church; in fact, it existed before the foundation of this world.

   2:  Priesthood will survive after the organization the church has been dissolved, into all eternity.

   3.  Therefore, Priesthood may exist in the church but it is separate from, and does not depend upon, the church for its existence.

As an example: the Three Nephites have priesthood authority but they do not hold an office or keys in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (that I know of, at least).

So one way we could interpret this scripture is that the church (beginning = temporal) is built up to bring us "unto" something that is "most holy," meaning the holy order of the priesthood after the order of the Son of God (no beginning = eternal).

The Whole Enchilada

Where do we obtain, or from whom do we obtain, the priesthood belonging to "the most holy faith?"

As opposed to some other, or lesser, priesthood? Like the "priesthood" belonging to Satan.  I mean, does the devil actually have any authority now that he has been cast down to earth? 

Well, he has a kingdom, doesn't he?

   It is the kingdom of the devil,
   which shall be built up
   among the children of men,
   which kingdom is established
   among them which are in the flesh --

   For the time speedily shall come
   that all churches
   which are built up to get gain,
   and all those who are built up
   to get power over the flesh,
   and those who are built up
   to become popular 
   in the eyes of the world,
   and to do all manner of iniquity;
   yea, in fine, all those who belong
   to the kingdom of the devil . . . 
   
(1 Nephi 22:22-23)

If the kingdom (or church) of the devil is about getting "gain" and "power" and "popularity", then we can safely assume that the kingdom (and church) of God is about the opposite. 

   What is the opposite of "gain"?  (POOR) 

   What is the opposite of "power"?  (MEEK) 

   What is the opposite of "popularity"?  (PERSECUTED)

You know, this church is starting to sound a lot like the one Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount ("Blessed are...").  But who would want to belong to that church?!

Anyone brave enough to belong to a poor, meek and persecuted people, here's a priesthood for you:

   The Melchizedek Priesthood
   holds the right from
   the eternal God,
   and not by descent
   from father and mother;
   and that priesthood is as eternal
   as God Himself, having neither
   beginning of days nor end of life.

(Joseph Smith, TPJS, 323)

Surprise!  The high priesthood does not come "by descent from father and mother"; meaning it is not passed down along earthly lines, like the Aaronic or lesser priesthood, which is lineal.  The Aaronic Priesthood can be passed down, but the priesthood of the most holy faith is not fungible. 

According to Joseph, the high priesthood comes from "God Himself."  What?  How does that work?  How do we get a priesthood from God? 

No worries!  I am sure there's an internet site we can download a certificate from.  But if not: "The Priesthood of Melchizedek is by an oath and covenant." (Joseph Smith, TPJS, 323.) 

Let's see how this worked for Melchizedek, a terrific guy whose name has become synonymous with the high priesthood (kind of like how Kleenex has become synonymous with tissues: can't trademark either):   

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

   And it was delivered unto men
   by the calling of his own voice,
   according to his own will,
   unto as many as believed on his name.
   For God having sworn unto Enoch
   and unto his seed with an oath by himself...

(JST Genesis 14:27-30)

It says that Melchizedek was "ordained an high priest."  But who ordained him?  

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

(Joseph Smith, TPJS, 181)

Waaaait a minute.  How do we get "ordained by God himself"?   

   Through the "Oath and Covenant" of the priesthood.

The Powers of Heaven

Before we look at the Oath and Covenant, let's look at a few scriptures that talk about the "powers of heaven."  

What are the "powers of heaven?"  That seems a crucial question since "the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled" (D&C 121:36).

What if the "powers of heaven" referred not to some abstraction, but referred instead (hear me out here) to actual, breathing, heavenly beings?  

Curious: the Lord referred to these "powers of heaven" three times (!) in his speech to the Nephites.  

   [This land] shall be a New Jerusalem.
   And the powers of heaven
   shall be in the midst of this people;
   yea, even I will be in the midst of you.

(3 Nephi 20:22)

Hmmm.  In case we missed it, the Lord repeats this idea in the following chapter:

   Then shall they assist my people
   that they may be gathered in,
   who are scattered upon all the face
   of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

   And then shall the power of heaven
   come down among them;
   and I also will be in the midst.

(3 Nephi 21:24-25)

Is Jesus referring to himself as the "power of heaven?"  Is he saying he will "come down" and be "in the midst" of his people?  

The third and final time we find "the powers" in 3 Nephi is when Jesus ministers to the Three Nephites (who, from what I have heard, spend an inordinate amount of time loitering around Interstate 15 and telling strangers to get their food storage in order): 

   Ye shall live to behold
   all the doings of the Father
   unto the children of men,
   even until all things 
   shall be fulfilled
   according to the will of the Father,
   when I shall come in my glory
   with the powers of heaven.

(3 Nephi 28:7)

Here it sounds like the "powers of heaven" are actual people who accompany the Lord at his Second Coming.  Could this have something to do with Enoch's Zion?  

   And Enoch beheld angels
   descending out of heaven,
   bearing testimony of the Father
   and the Son; and the Holy Ghost
   fell on many, and they were
   caught up by the powers of heaven
   into Zion.

(Moses 7:27)

Are we seeing a connection between the powers of heaven and the New Jerusalem-slash-Zion?  Are we thinking there may be something going on that involves the covenants and oaths God made to Enoch (and the other patriarchal Fathers)?

Are we thinking that authority, or power in the priesthood, comes when we connect with the "powers of heaven"? 

Blessings and More Blessings

"But didn't Abraham receive the priesthood from Melchizedek?" someone may ask.  "Didn't Melchizedek use the laying on of hands to ordain Abraham?"  I am so glad you asked!

   Melchizedek lifted up his voice
   and blessed Abram.

(JST Genesis 14:25)

   And he [Melchizedek] lifted up his voice
   and he blessed Abram,
   being the high priest.

(JST Genesis 14:37)

   And he [Melchizedek] blessed him,
   and said, Blessed be Abram
   of the most high God, possessor
   of heaven and earth.

(Genesis 14:19)

​Okay, I think we get the message.  Melchizedek did not "ordain" Abram; he blessed him.  That's the whole point: the high priesthood is meant to impart blessings.  

This gives a whole new light to Abraham's own account:

   I sought for the blessings
   of the fathers, and the right
​   whereunto I should be ordained
   to administer the same. 

(Abraham 1:2)

The ordination (from God) is meant to give those who are high priests of the holy order the ability to administer "the blessings" unto others.  And remember, Jesus is our Great High Priest.  

Now we need to dissect the following language:

   It [the right belonging to the the fathers]
   was conferred upon me from the fathers.

(Abraham 1:3)

Hold on.  We know that someone "conferred" the right on Abraham.  D&C 84:14 says "Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek."  It does not say, though, "conferred upon me [by] the fathers."  It was conferred "from" the fathers.  What's the difference?

   It [the right] came down from the fathers,
   from the beginning of time, 
   yea, even from the beginning,
   or before the foundation of the earth.

​Hmmm.  What did Alma say "before the foundation of the earth" meant?  He said it meant "being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity" (Alma 13:7).  And what is this "right" Abraham is talking about?

   Even the right of the firstborn,
   or the first man, who is Adam,
   or first father, through the fathers
   unto me.

So it appears the right Abraham sought was something that passed "from" or "through" the fathers, and thus through Melchizedek to Abraham.  
​
   I sought for mine appointment
   unto the Priesthood according to
   the appointment of God
   unto the fathers concerning the seed.

(Abraham 1:4) 
   
How did Abraham receive the holy priesthood and receive the right of the firstborn?  Who is "the seed" who receives the right of the fathers?  

   And the Lord appeared unto me,
   and said unto me: Arise. . . 
   My name is Jehovah, and I know
   the end from the beginning. . . 
   And I will make of thee a great nation,
   and I will bless thee above measure . . . 
   and though shalt be a blessing
   unto thy seed after thee,
   that in their hands they shall bear
   this ministry and Priesthood
   unto all nations.

   And I will bless them through thy name...
   And I will bless them that bless thee.

(Abraham 2:6-11)

From Abraham's example, we find that he received his "appointment" from the Lord himself, who blessed him by an oath and a covenant.  

So it was from the beginning, or with the first man Adam:

   So the Gods went down
   to organize man
   in their own image,
   in the image of the Gods
   to form they him,
   male and female
   to form they them.

   And the Gods said:
   We will bless them.

(Abraham 4:27-28)

   This holy priesthood holds the "blessings" of the family of God.

The Voice

So we've looked at both Melchizedek and Abraham, and how Abraham received his "appointment unto the Priesthood" (Abraham 1:4).  Just to drive home the point:

   Abraham received all things,
   whatsoever he received,
   by revelation and commandment,
   by my word, saith the Lord.

(D&C 132:29)

How about Joseph Smith?  How did he receive his "appointment" unto the high priesthood?  

   For all who will have a blessing
   at my hands
   shall abide the law
   which was appointed
   for that blessing,
   and the conditions thereof,
   as were instituted 
   from before the foundation
   of the world.

   I have appointed 
   unto my servant Joseph
   to hold this power
   in the last days.

   Will I receive at your hands
   that which I have not appointed?
   And will I appoint unto you,
   saith the Lord, except it be by law,
   even as I and my Father
   ordained unto you,
   before the world was?

   I am the Lord thy God,
   and I gave unto thee,
   my servant Joseph,
   an appointment,
​   and restore all things.

(D&C 132:5, 7, 10, 11, 40)

The pattern is remarkable.  God's oath and covenant is delivered by his "word," at his "hands"; even the appointment of the right belonging to the fathers, which is the "right of the firstborn", which Joseph received from God.

   The voice of Peter, James, and John
   in the wilderness between Harmony,
   Susquehanna county, and Colesville,
   Broome county, on the Susquehanna river,
   declaring themselves as possessing
   the keys of the kingdom, and of the
   dispensation of the fulness of times!

   And again, the voice of God
   in the chamber of old Father Whitmer,
   in Fayette, Seneca county, and at
   sundry times, and in divers places
   through all the travels and tribulations
   of this Church of Jesus Christ
   of Latter-day Saints!

   And the voice of Michael, the archangel;
   the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and
   of divers angels, from Michael or Adam
   down to the present time, all declaring 
   their dispensation, their rights, their keys,
   their honors, their majesty and glory,
   and the power of their priesthood.

(D&C 128:20-21)

Whoa, slow down.  What does it mean for these powers of heaven to "declare" their rights and keys and honors?  Does their declaration confer authority, or power, upon us?

Laying on of hands

Isn't it interesting that the ordination of Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood was accompanied by the laying on of hands (see JS-H 1:68), but we have no account of the laying on of hands being used by Peter, James and John?  Instead, we have "the voice" being referenced.  

In fact, a big deal is made about the manner of ordination to the Aaronic priesthood, but we know next to nothing about the manner of ordination to the higher priesthood. 

   Which John I have sent
   unto you, my servants,
   Joseph Smith, Jun., 
   and Oliver Cowdery,
   to ordain you
   unto the first priesthood
   which you have received,
   that you might be called
   and ordained even as Aaron.

(D&C 27:8)

Well, that makes me wonder, "How was Aaron ordained?" 

   And Moses brought Aaron and his sons
   and washed them with water.
   And he put upon him the coat,
   and girded him with the girdle,
   and clothed him with the robe,
   and put the ephod upon him...
   and he put the breastplate upon him:
   also he put in the breastplate
   the Urim and the Thummim.
   And he put the mitre upon his head...
   
   And Moses took the anointing oil...
   and he poured of the anointing oil
   upon Aaron's head, and anointed him,
   to sanctify him.

(Leviticus 8:6-12)

Whoa.  If that is how Aaron was ordained, and if John ordained Joseph and Oliver "even as Aaron", then I must have missed something in the Cliff Notes.

An Important Principle

Joseph Smith said, "There are three grand orders of priesthood." (TPJS, 322.)  He mentioned 1) Melchizedek, 2) Patriarchal, and 3) Levitical.   

It's interesting that ordination to the lesser or Aaronic priesthood is a public production.  It is on display for all to see.  That's the point!  It is the priesthood of "outward ordinances."  

   And gather thou all the congregation
   together unto the door of the tabernacle
   of the congregation.  

   And Moses did as the Lord commanded him;
   and the assembly was gathered together...

   And Moses said unto the congregation,
   This is the thing the Lord commanded 
   to be done.  And Moses brought Aaron
   and his sons, and washed them with water.

(Leviticus 8:3-6)

In fact, we carry paperwork to describe our ordination to the Aaronic priesthood.  

   Each priest, teacher, or deacon
   who is ordained by a priest,
   may take a certificate
   from him at the time,
   which certificate, when presented
   to an elder, shall entitle him 
   to a license, which shall authorize him
   to perform the duties of his calling.

(D&C 20:64)

That makes sense: we want to ensure that those who perform the "duties of his calling" are authorized.  

The principle is that those things done in the church, by the church, are done by common consent and by the laying on of hands.   Article of Faith 5 states that we use the "laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." 

Well . . . 

Okay, is it possible that Joseph, being a busy guy, asked one of his many friends to respond to John Wentworth and just sort of "rubber stamped" the letter that was sent back to the Chicago Democrat?  After all, could he have dreamt that we would adopt a sort of catechism from some things written in a letter sent to a non-member?  Because why does Article of Faith 5 mention "pastors" and "evangelists" when we don't use those terms for offices in the church?  And isn't Article of Faith 3 weird, too, stating that we are saved "by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel," which is pretty works-based, when the Articles and Covenants state the church's official soteriology as "we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true; And we know also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true" (D&C 20:30-31); and I have to throw a flag on Article of Faith 12, which states we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates . . . because that is not the case from my reading of church history at all, and it certainly does not square with Joseph's attempt at creating the Kingdom of God; and we are talking about red-blooded Americans in Jacksonian America for whom the idea of kings . . . you get the idea.

And while we're talking shop, the lack of historical information we have concerning Peter, James and John and the ordination Joseph and Oliver received from them, and when, and where, and how, is a big historical debate and I do not wish to wade into it.  One of the issues is that the verses in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants that mention the ordination by Peter, James and John are not found in the original revelation as recorded in Revelation Book 1; nor are those verses found in The Evening and Morning Star and Book of Commandments when the revelation was published in 1833, but they appear for the first time in the published 1835 Doctrine and Covenants without explanation of where they came from, or from whom, or why.  What further muddies the water is that the added verses also refer to Moroni, when Joseph's own accounts credited Nephi as the angel . . . never mind, that is another historical debate I do not wish to take sides on, but merely to point out that are some interesting things that need to be sorted out. 

Anyway . . . 

Example of Paul

Yes, Paul traveled to Jerusalem 14 years after his conversion on the Road to Damascus, after he had been preaching the gospel and performing miracles all over the world, and was accepted by the 12 Apostles at that time . . . but the apostles did not "give" Paul his authority.

   But I certify you, brethren,
   that the gospel which was preached
   of me is not after man.  [He had no certificate]

   For I neither received it of man,
   neither was I taught it,
   but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

   But when it pleased God,
   who separated me from my mother’s womb,
   and called me by his grace,

   To reveal his Son in me,
   that I might preach him among
   the heathen; immediately
   I conferred not with flesh and blood:

   Neither went I up to Jerusalem
   to them which were apostles before me;
   but I went into Arabia,
   and returned again unto Damascus.

(Galatians 1:11-17)​

But there were many people who rejected Paul's authority and his claim to the apostleship.  Not Peter, who referred to Paul as a "beloved brother" (2 Pet. 3:15-16), but there was enough opposition to Paul that he had to "defend" his unorthodox apostleship in 2 Corinthians chapters 10 thru 13. 

   For in nothing
   am I behind
   the very chiefest
   apostles, though
   I be nothing.

   Truly the signs
   of an apostle
   were wrought
   among you
   in all patience,
   in signs,
   and wonders,
   and mighty deeds.

(2 Cor. 12:11-12)

Paul's authority did not come through the Church, although he was acknowledged by the Church; it was given him by God and confirmed by the "signs," "wonders," and "mighty deeds" he performed in the name of the Lord. 

The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood
​
​So let's look at the the Oath and Covenant.

   All those who receive [this] priesthood,
   receive this oath and covenant
   of my Father, which he cannot break,
   neither can it be moved.

   But whoso breaketh this covenant
   after he hath received it,
   and altogether turneth therefrom,
   shall not have forgiveness of sins
   in this world nor in the world to come.

   And wo unto all those who come not
   unto this priesthood which ye have received,
   which I now confirm upon you
   who are present this day,
   by mine own voice out of the heavens;
   and even I have given the heavenly hosts
   and mine angels charge concerning you
   [think: "powers of heaven"].

   For you shall live by every word
   that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.

   For the word of the Lord is truth,
   and whatsoever is truth is light,
   and whatsoever is light is Spirit,
   even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

   And the Spirit giveth light to every man
   that cometh into the world; and the Spirit
   enlighteneth every man through the world,
   that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

   And every one that hearkeneth
   to the voice of the Spirit
   cometh unto God, even the Father.

   And the Father teacheth him
   of the covenant which he has renewed
   and confirmed upon you,
   which is confirmed upon you for your sakes,
   and not for your sakes only,
   but for the sake of the whole world.

(D&C 84:40-48)

Clearly the Oath and Covenant and receiving the fullness of the priesthood involves knowing the Father.

Example of Alma

How did Alma the Elder receive his authority?

   And it came to pass that Alma,
   having authority from God,
   ordained priests; even one priest
   to every fifty of their number.

(Mosiah 18:18)

Look at the words Alma used when he baptized in the Waters of Mormon:

   I baptize thee,
   having authority
   from the Almighty God.

(Mosiah 18:13)

Remember how the high priesthood is to administer blessings?  Look at what happened to Alma:

   And it came to pass
   that after he had poured
   out his whole soul to God,
   the voice of the Lord
   came to him, saying:

   Blessed art thou, Alma,
   and blessed are they who were baptized
   in the waters of Mormon. 
   Thou art blessed because of thy 
   exceeding faith in the words alone 
   of my servant Abinaidi.

   And blessed art thou 
   because thou has established
   a church among this people.

    Yea, blessed is this people 
    who are willing to bear my name.

   Thou art my servant, and I covenant
   with thee that thou shalt have
   eternal life.

(Mosiah 26:14-20)   

Conclusion

Come unto Christ, come unto God, even the Father.  Receive the words of life from his mouth.  Enter into his covenant.

My Favorite Un-scripture

​In the movie Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter celebrates Alice's "Unbirthday." I like to think we have "unscriptures" - you know, the ones we mentally adjust to better fit our version of things.

Take a look at this:

Version 1

     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)

But sometimes here's how I wish it read:

Version 2

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

As a missionary, we loved living Version 2.  At night we would plan our next day of proselytizing and kneel down and pray, "Dear Lord, Elder Sasquatch and I are going to fast tomorrow, and we are going to talk to someone each time we ride the bus, and we are going to stand on our heads in the lake district . . . and all we ask is that in exchange for our efforts, You open doors and hearts so we can teach three lessons . . . "

And the next day sometimes we got lucky . . . and sometimes the Lord failed us. 

Wait a minute, is that what happened?  Is it the Lord's fault when He doesn't come through for us after we've done what we said we'd do?

   "Why haven't I found me a spouse yet, when I have worked so hard and done [x], [y], [z]?! 
   "Lord, you haven't healed me even though I have tried [a], [b], [c]?!"

How often in our lived experience do we do what God actually says? Versus what we think he said, or wanted him to say, or what we were told by others he said? 

A Message From Our Advocate

No, I am not selling ads on my blog.  I just like lawyer commercials.  And Bill Shatner. 

I also like lawyer jokes.  Here's one:

   An attorney tells his client: “I have some good news and some bad news.”
   “What’s the bad news?” asks the accused.
   “The bad news is, your blood is all over the crime scene, and the DNA tests prove you did it.”
   “What’s the good news?”
   “Your cholesterol is 130.”

Zeezrom: A Study in Lawyercraft

The Book of Mormon does not pull punches.  It hits pretty hard at lawyers.  Here's a real winner:

   I say unto you,
   that the foundation 
   of the destruction 
   of this people
   is beginning 
   to be laid 
   by the unrighteousness
   of your lawyers
   and your judges.

(Alma 10:27)

Why do lawyers have such a bad reputation?  Because the stereotype is that they'll do anything to squeeze money out of a turnip.  Like Zeezrom.  In his great contest with Amulek, we read:

   It was for the sole purpose to get gain,
   because they received their wages
   according to their employ,
   therefore, they did stir up
   the people to riotings,
   and all manner of disturbances
   and wickedness, that they might
   have more employ, that they might
   get money according to the suits
   which were brought before them.

(Alma 11:20)

I cringe at the part where Amulek accuses Zeezrom:

   I say unto you,
   thou lovest 
   that lucre
   more than
   him [God].

(Alma 11:24)

An unrighteous lawyer is one who uses their position to "stir up" the people in order to "get gain."  Contrast that with our lawyer, Christ, who has no need of our money. 

​He represents us pro bono.

What Kind of Lawyer is Jesus?

​Jesus is our “advocate,” which means that before the tribunal of God He is our defense attorney. 

   And if any man sin,
   we have an advocate
   with the Father,
   Jesus Christ
   the righteous.

(1 John 2:1)

Seeing as how we are all guilty, it is a tough job.  

As heaven's court-appointed public Defender, Jesus stands at our side while we are arraigned before the pleasing bar of God.  In fact, this remarkable scene is described in scripture by none other than the Lord Himself: 

   Listen to him who is the advocate
   with the Father, who is pleading
   your cause before him,

[Now this next part is where Christ reveals our legal defense, so take notes if you are pre-law or if you hope to go to heaven]

   Saying—Father, behold the sufferings
   and death of him who did no sin,
   in whom thou wast well pleased;
   behold the blood of thy Son
   which was shed, the blood of him
   whom thou gavest that thyself
   might be glorified.

(D&C 45:3-4)

Huh?  What just happened? 

I thought judgment was about me, when in fact, our defense Lawyer stands up and tells the Judge: “Your Honor, if it please the Court, let the accused go free because I am innocent.”  

How unexpected!  Instead of the trial being about us, Jesus shows the trial was always about Him!

Ironically, there is no discussion of our guilt (it is presumed) and there is no mitigating evidence presented of our good works (you may discard Exhibits ‘A’ thru ‘Z’ you have been keeping in your back pocket). 

Our Wonderful Counselor continues:

   Wherefore, Father, spare these
   my brethren that believe on my name,
   that they may come unto me
   and have everlasting life.

(D&C 45:5)

Now the courtroom finally takes notice of us standing there next to Jesus.  Have we believed in Christ and have we come unto Him?   If so, we are . . . well, not exactly acquitted (for we were guilty as sin), but in Christ’s name we are pardoned.  

   In all their afflictions
   he was afflicted.
   And the angel of his presence
   saved them; and in his love,
   and in his pity,
   he redeemed them.

(D&C 133:53).  

So What Did the Lord Say?

Okay, now we've set the stage for us to have a heart-to-heart.  Let me ask you this question:

   Why do we defend and uphold inequality?  

Sure, I bet there are great reviews for Babylon's bed-and-breakfasts on Trip Advisor, and their gelato is out-of-this-world-amazing (from what I've seen on Instagram), but weren't we aiming for Zion?  

Why are we settling for something well below the Celestial standard?

I might have an answer. 

What if the reason we're dragging our feet 200 years after a bright light shone from heaven was

   Because [our] hearts are set
   so much upon the things of this world,
   and aspire to the honors of men,
   that [we] do not learn this one lesson--

   That the rights of the priesthood
   are inseparably connected
   with the powers of heaven,
   and that the powers of heaven
   cannot be controlled
   nor handled only upon
   the principles of righteousness.

   That they may be conferred upon us,
   it is true; but when we undertake
   to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride,
   our vain ambition, or to exercise control
   or dominion or compulsion upon the souls
   of the children of men, in any degree
   of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens
   withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord
   is grieved; and when it is withdrawn,

   Amen

   to the priesthood or the authority
   of that man.

   We have learned by sad experience
   that it is the nature and disposition
   of almost all men, as soon as they get
   a little authority, as they suppose,
   they will immediately begin to exercise
   unrighteous dominion.

   Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

(D&C 121:35-37)

There's the answer.  (What is the percentage of "almost all men"?) 

The natural man seeks celebrity.  To enjoy the things of this world.  The natural man desires honor and control.  To gratify his pride, he exercises vanity and ambition, seeking to be in charge of others, which makes him appear "successful."   He acts to "compel" the souls of men and women, usually to serve his self-interest.  And during all of this, there's a big cover up!  His sins are buried under non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements.  

Now, let's re-read the above text and apply it to Christian churches: 

   Because their hearts are set 
   so much upon the things of this world, 
   and aspire to the honors of men, 
   that they do not learn this one lesson--

   That the rights of the priesthood 
   are inseparably connected 
   with the powers of heaven, 
   and that the powers of heaven 
   cannot be controlled 
   nor handled only upon 
   the principles of righteousness.

   That they may be conferred upon us, 
   it is true; but when we undertake 
   to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, 
   our vain ambition, or to exercise control 
   or dominion or compulsion upon the souls 
   of the children of men, in any degree 
   of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens
   withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord 
   is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, 

   Amen 

   to the priesthood or the authority 
   of that man.

   We have learned by sad experience 
   that it is the nature and disposition 
   of almost all men, as soon as they get 
   a little authority, as they suppose, 
   they will immediately begin to exercise 
   unrighteous dominion.

   Hence many are called, but few are chosen.​

A More Excellent Way

The Good News is that we have a Shepherd.  We are not wandering around all alone.  We don't have to figure this out ourselves.  He has shown us a better way:

   No power or influence
   can or ought to be maintained
   by virtue of the priesthood,
   only by persuasion,
   by long-suffering,
   by gentleness
   and meekness,
   and by love unfeigned;
   By kindness,
   and pure knowledge,

   which shall greatly enlarge the soul
   without hypocrisy, and without guile.

(D&C 121:41-42)

According to this text, the problem we need to overcome is "hypocrisy" and "guile."

We all know what hypocrisy is, but what is "guile"?  How is guile an issue for churches?  "Guile" means "astuteness, often marked by a certain sense of cunning or artful deception; deceptiveness, deceit, fraud, duplicity, dishonesty."

There are two ways to interpret D&C 121:41 because of the ambiguous comma.  I am not a grammarian, but here is how I read it:

Version 2

   No power or influence 
   can or ought to be maintained 
   by virtue of the priesthood[.][Full stop.]
   [Power or influence
   can be maintained]  
   only by persuasion, 
   by long-suffering, 
   by gentleness 
   and meekness, 
   and by love unfeigned;
   By kindness, 
   and pure knowledge.

See the difference?  Sometimes people think that priesthood authority can righteously be exercised if they pad it with persuasion, long-suffering, and so on, like those attributes are the whipped cream and cherries on top of their Authority Banana Split.  

But what if Joseph was saying that priesthood authority cannot be wielded as a power or influence over others?  What if he was saying that when we attempt to use our "little authority" to pull rank, that is de facto unrighteous dominion?

Was Joseph saying that the ONLY power or influence we possess is by means of persuasion, long-suffering, by gentleness, etc. 

The Debate is Over

Either way we read it, the notion that "when [an authority figure] speaks, the debate is over" is anathema (see, "The Debate is Over", Ensign, August 1979).  Such an idea mocks our moral agency.  

Picture this:  if my wife were a ballroom dancer, and I objected to her skimpy leotard and sexy dance routines, and me standing up and declaring, "As Head of this household, I forbid you from dancing the Tango and Cha Cha at the festival.  The debate is over!"

We would not countenance that kind of behavior from someone who is supposed to love us.  

Lords vs. Stewards

What if we viewed ourselves as "stewards" rather than as lords?

The title of this series "Stewards of God's Grace" comes from St. Peter, who taught:

   And above all things
   have fervent charity
   among yourselves . . . 
   as every man hath received
   the gift, even so minister
   the same one to another,
   as good stewards
   of the manifold grace
   of God.

(1 Peter 4:8, 10)

I think we can learn something from Peter, who was the chief apostle, and who warned us:

   Feed the flock of God
   which is among you,
   taking the oversight thereof,
   not by constraint,
   but willingly;
   not for filthy lucre,
   but of a ready mind;

   Neither as being lords
   over God’s heritage,
   but being ensamples
   to the flock.

We can't very well be good examples if we act like "lords over God's heritage", can we?

What does it mean to be a "steward" of God's grace?

Gardeners of Grace

If a thing comes from God, then we are merely "stewards" of it.  We cannot "own" something that is not ours. 

   A commandment I give unto you
   concerning your stewardship
   which I have appointed unto you.
  
   Behold all these properties
   are mine, or else your faith
   is vain, and ye are found hypocrites,
   and the covenants
   which ye have made unto me
   are broken;

   And if the properties are mine,
   then ye are stewards;
   otherwise ye are no stewards.

(D&C 104:54-56)

Being a steward is like being a gardener.  We take God's grace and nourish it, tend it, grow it, share it.  

Consecration

What if this idea of stewardship, which we usually think of in terms of our earthly possessions, applied to authority as well? 

I have not talked about "consecration" before on this blog.  But I invoke it now in discussing authority. 

We cannot have things in common unless we have authority in common, otherwise there will always be inequality as those with more authority aggregate greater privilege and possessions. 

The consequences of establishing elevated positions in the body of Christ is the cautionary tale of Christian history.

   That you may be equal
   in the bonds of heavenly things,
   yea, and earthly things also,
   for the obtaining of heavenly things.

   For if you will that I give unto you
   a place in the celestial world,
   you must prepare yourselves
   by doing the things
   which I have commanded you.

(D&C 78:5, 7)

But what if the role of stewards in God's vineyard was not to consolidate and amass authority, but to compost it and distribute it evenly around the trees?    

   And thus they labored,
   with all diligence,
   according to the commandments
   of the Lord of the vineyard,
   even until the bad had been cast away
   out of the vineyard, and the Lord
   had preserved unto himself
   that the trees had become again
   the natural fruit; and they became
   like unto one body;
   and the fruits were equal.

(Jacob 5:74)

What if the point of having churches was to create equality among believers, so that grace can "abound"?  

What if God's plan was to take feet, and eyes, and noses, and big fat bums, and make them all "one" in the body of Christ?

   And the eye cannot say
   unto the hand,
   I have no need of thee:
   nor again the head
   of the feet,
   I have no need of you.

(1 Cor. 12:21)

Monkey Wrench

Throwing a "monkey wrench" at something means to "sabotage or frustrate a project or plan." 

What is the biggest monkey wrench that Satan could throw at God's plan to treat each other equally?

   That there should be no schism
   in the body; 
   but that the members
   should have the same
   care one for another.

(1 Cor. 12:25) 

Could the devil bankrupt Christian churches of God's grace by creating inequality, status and rank in the body of Christ?  
​
   And it came to pass
   that the servant
   said unto his master:

   Is it not the loftiness 
   of thy vineyard--
   have not the branches
   thereof overcome the roots
   which are good?

   And because the branches
   have overcome the roots
   thereof, behold they grew
   faster than the strength
   of the roots, taking strength
   unto themselves.

   Behold, I say, is not this
   the cause that the trees
   of thy vineyard
   have become corrupted?

(Jacob 5:48)

State of the Vineyard Address

Satan's big con is to trick us into using authority to stratify, classify and divide the members in the body of Christ.  He likes to assign titles to "important" people."  He delights in the pride and envy that accompany systems with "haves" and "have-nots." 

Jesus, on the other hand, lambasted the Pharisees who were obsessed with such things:

   They make broad
   their phylacteries,
   and enlarge the borders
   of their garments,

   And love the uppermost
   rooms at feasts,
   and the chief seats
   in the synagogues,

   And greetings in the markets,
   and to be called of men,
   Rabbi, Rabbi.

   But be not ye called Rabbi:
   for one is your Master,
   even Christ, 
   and all ye are brethren.

(Matt. 23:5-8)

What an amazing deception Satan has pulled off.  He has fooled us into thinking the hanging gardens of Babylon are actually God's landscaping. 

We have created a hierarchy of institutionalized inequality in our churches and call it God's handiwork; when Jesus expressly forbade such a thing!

   Jesus called them to him,
   and saith unto them,
   Ye know that they
   which are accounted to rule
   over the Gentiles 
   exercise lordship over them;
   and their great ones exercise
   authority upon them.

   But so shall it not be among you.

(Mark 10:42)

I think now we're getting a better idea of what the Lord meant when he said:
​
   They draw near unto me
   with their lips,
   but their hearts
   are far from me;

   They teach for doctrines
   the commandments of men,
   having a form of godliness,
   but they deny the power
   thereof.

(JS-H 1:19)

We wonder how we got here. 

​Is it because we have not chosen to love one another, as Jesus loved us?

Is it possible to reform economic systems? 

The reason it is tough is because those who control the purse-strings are personally invested in maintaining the status quo.  Put another way, why would those in power want to kill the golden goose? 

Welcome to Babylon.  

The Goose Lays an Egg

​President Harry S. Truman said,

   An honest public servant
   can't become rich
   in politics.

(Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, p. 306, from an April 1954 diary entry)

If that quote is true of politicians, should it also be true of priests?

We would expect "business as usual" from political systems and corporate interests, but what is surprising is that churches create systems for accumulating wealth, too. 

I say "surprising" because we would assume Christian churches would be following the Sermon on the Mount.  (Or did I skip Sunday School the week they taught "Mammon Gets Baptized: The True Hollywood Story of How the Rich and Fabulous Whore of Babylon Found Religion!")

   Lay not up for yourselves treasures
   upon earth, where moth and rust
   doth corrupt, and where thieves
   break through and steal:

   But lay up for yourselves treasures
   in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
   doth corrupt, and where thieves
   do not break through nor steal:

   For where your treasure is,
   there will your heart be also.

   No man can serve two masters:
   for either he will hate the one,
   and love the other; or else
   he will hold to the one,
   and despise the other.

   Ye cannot serve God
   and mammon.

(Matthew 6:19-21, 24)

Million Dollar Question

Jesus taught:

   For whosoever will save
   his life shall lose it:
   and whosoever will lose
   his life for my sake
   shall find it.

(Matt. 16:25).

Question:  What does it tell us, and what lessons should we learn, from the fact that popes, prophets and ministers become millionaires?

KFC Original Recipe

Colonel Sanders made a fortune with eleven secret ingredients that made his fried chicken famous.  What were the 11 herbs and spices that made us all crave his delicious chicken? 

Well, for over 60 years no one knew because it was a closely guarded trade secret.  Then in 2016 it was reported that a handwritten piece of paper found in an old scrapbook contained the Original Recipe:

Salt, thyme, basil, oregano, celery salt, pepper, dry mustard, paprika, garlic salt, ground ginger, and white pepper.  

Who's hungry?  Because the way religions cook up riches is no secret.  At the end of the day, they all follow the same recipe: 

   Pay x (Price) = Salvation

In other words, we pay the cost of salvation and our religion assures us a ticket to heaven.  What is the difference between religion and debt collectors when churches restrict access to the Cross?  When they create status in their ranks, offering the prized ordinances of salvation only to those who give them money?

This is the goose that lays golden eggs day after day.

The Golden Ticket to Heaven

​In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the whole world became obsessed with finding the golden ticket.  And wow, Willy Wonka's plan sure drove up business!  On the ticket it read:

   Greetings to you,
   the lucky finder
   of this Golden Ticket,
   from Mr. Willy Wonka!
   I shake you warmly 
   by the hand!
   Tremendous things
   are in store for you!
   Many wonderful
   surprises await you!
   For now, I do invite
   you to come
   to my factory . . . 
   My beloved 
   Golden Ticket
   Holders: mystic
   and marvelous 
   surprises that will
   entice, delight,
   intrigue, astonish
   and perplex you
   beyond measure
   [await]!

(Roald Dahl, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)

Well, that about sums up religion, doesn't it?  

If we buy enough chocolate candy bars we may just find a golden ticket.

Indulgences

The Golden Ticket of Religion takes many shapes.  Let's look at "indulgences."

When I lived in France as a missionary I visited dozens of cathedrals and my jaw dropped hearing that some of them took 400 years to build.  That required a lot of dedication and sacrifice from the people.  The cathedrals have a spirit and a beauty that I cherish.  The cathedral in Chartres was truly spectacular.  Once when I went to Midnight Mass the stones cried out as the organ thundered.  I love Catholicism. 

One of the big debates of the Reformation was over the selling of indulgences, which was the Middle-Age version of tithing and work for the dead rolled into one.  

It was a way for the church to generate income while allowing members, through the purchase of indulgences, to free their deceased loved ones from purgatory.

Then Martin Luther showed up and all hell broke loose. 

Why?  Because he was targeting the economic foundation of his church.

​Three Theses
   
On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg church. 

Here are three of my favorites that are still relevant:

   No. 27.  They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

​   No. 32.  Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

   No.  43.  Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

Re-read that last one, No. 43. 

Question:  Why would this threaten the most powerful kingdom on earth, the Holy Roman Empire?   

Answer:  Because if people started donating their money directly to the poor and needy instead of to the church, then how would the church pay its bills, afford its armies, pay its staff, and buy more real estate?  

   For behold, ye do love money,
   and your substance,
   and your fine apparel,
   and the adorning
   of your churches,
   more than ye love
   the poor and the needy,
   the sick and the afflicted.

   O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites,
   ye teachers, who sell yourselves
   for that which will canker,
   why have ye polluted
   the holy church of God? 

(Mormon 8:37-38)

Pure Religion

I have charity towards all faiths, religions and people.  We're all in this boat together. 

Moroni, in the quote above, is pointing to a weakness that is universal - one we all struggle with - the "love of money" in comparison to our "love of the poor."  

What I am trying to figure out is why Christian churches turn religion into big business when we all know: 

   Pure religion
   and undefiled
   before God
   and the Father
   is this,

   To visit the fatherless
   and widows
   in their affliction,
   and to keep himself
   unspotted from the world.

(James 1:27)

Is it just me, or does it seem like the gospel of Jesus Christ gets smothered and buried underneath a thousand mattresses - all the paperwork and duties and obligations and meetings and politics and marketing of religion - where the "pure" gospel is no more than a small pea at the bottom of all those mattresses? 

Can we even feel it anymore? 

Could Jesus have been talking to us when he said:

   And the cares of this world,
   and the deceitfulness of riches,
   and the lusts of other things
   entering in, choke the word,
   and it becometh unfruitful.

(Mark 4:19)

The Counter-Reformation

To the Catholic Church's credit, they spent 18 years working to reform the Church at the Council of Trent  (three different sessions between 1545 and 1563).  

They were serious.

What would happen if we all took a hard look at our own religions and convened hundreds of "Councils of Trent," working together towards a purer religion?

The Real Problem

So what stops us?  Why wouldn't we want to follow in Christ's footsteps and live his law? 

John W. Malley, a professor at Georgetown University who is a scholar on the Council of Trent, shared this fascinating insight about the obstacle they faced:

"Almost every specific proposal 'to reform the church' had financial implications.  The benefice system was at the heart of the way the church operated, so that any reform that touched upon benefices touched upon somebody's pocketbook . . . . Money played a fundamental role in the reforms that Trent tried to legislate, and it explains the resistance those reforms met both during and after the council."

(John W. Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council, p. 17)

Show Me the Money

If we "follow the money" it will usually guide us to what we love most.   

As the saying goes, “Put your money where your mouth is.”  And if we find ourselves lip-to-lip with the lecherous maw of mammon, it will certainly be the spiritual kiss of death.  It reminds me of what Jesus said to Judas in the garden: "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" (Luke 22:48).

What is Mammon? How do we "betray" God when we serve Mammon?

I used to think of Mammon as "the covetousness of riches."  But now I view Mammon as being about much more than money.  What does money get us?  How does it create systems of inequality that place people in bondage?  How does Mammon promote pride among those who have riches, status, rank, and power?

** MAMMON ALERT **

Mammon on an individual level is about "the love of money."  But far worse, Mammon on an institutional level becomes the way money is used to maintain engines of power, which invariably lead to classes, rank, and inequality.

Look carefully at Mammon's economy:

   The merchandise of gold, and silver,
   and precious stones, and of pearls,
   and fine linen, and purple, and silk,
   and scarlet, and all thyine wood,
   and all manner vessels of ivory,
   and all manner vessels of precious
   wood, and of brass, and iron,
   and marble, and cinnamon,
   and odours, and ointments,
   and frankincense, and wine,
   and oil, and fine flour, and wheat,
   and beasts, and sheep, and horses
   and chariots, and slaves,
   and souls of men.

(Revelation 18:12-13)

Religions wield perhaps the greatest "power" by negotiating the conditions of our salvation.

Mammon says:  "You want to be saved?  Then you have to do [x] and [y] and [z], and pay [a] or [b] or [c], then you may receive the necessary [sacrament] or [ordinance] or [grace] from my hands."​

Sectarianism

That's the catch: it has to be by my authority, my version of the gospel, my creed, my keys, my church, my priesthood . . . because I am the only one that God approves of.

In other words, the business of religion is not about converting people to the gospel, but converting them to a belief that they must be placed under my authority if they wish to be saved.

What I am describing is "sectarianism," which means an "excessive attachment to a particular sect or party, especially in religion."

On the other hand, Alma said:

   For behold, the Lord
   doth grant unto all
   nations, of their own
   nation and tongue,
   to teach his word.

(Alma 29:8)

What did Joseph Smith think about Sectarianism?

Question:  Did Joseph Smith encourage his followers to be cliquish and to engage in religious tribalism?  Would he have supported the "thought police"?

Thumbs up Seven Up!  Let's find out the answer.

Story of Pelatiah Brown

In 1843 a member of the church named Pelatiah Brown was teaching about the Book of Revelation.

He got in trouble for his interpretation of John's vision.  And he was taken to a church court and tried for his "crimes" of teaching false doctrine (sound familiar?).

Joseph Smith came to Brother's Brown's defense and said in a public sermon:

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

"I do not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine.  It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints.  Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. 

"I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please.  It feels so good not be trammeled. . . . 

"Why should we find fault?  Anything to whip sectarianism, to put down priestcraft, and bring the human family to a knowledge of the truth."

(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 340-341)

Answer: Joseph really disliked sectarianism.  

World's Greatest Sectarians

As Joseph Smith pointed out in the above quote, sectarianism and priestcraft go hand-in-hand like old high school sweethearts.  

Why is that?

Because the name of the game, in order to profit from religion, is to convince others that we have found the straight and narrow whilst everyone else is going to hell?

The Book of Mormon, from cover to cover, shreds the notions of sectarianism apart.  I mean, for half the book there wasn't even a church!

The Zoramites were real gems.  On church-day, the Zoramites headed to the synagogue and walked up the Rameumptom and cried with a loud voice to God, saying:

   Holy, holy God; we believe
   that thou art God, and . . . 
   that thou hast separated us
   from our brethren;
   and we do not believe
   in the tradition of our brethren,
   which was handed down
   to them by the childishness
   of their fathers; but we believe
   that thou hast elected us
   to be thy holy children;
   and also thou hast made
   it known unto us
   that there shall be no Christ.

   But thou art the same
   yesterday, today, and forever;
   and thou hast elected us
   that we shall be saved,
   whilst all around us
   are elected to be cast
   by thy wrath down to hell;
   for the which holiness,
   O God, we thank thee.

​(Alma 31:15-18)

​The Good News

Okay, now its time for the good news.  Which is, of course, the Good News!  There is a more excellent way.  

Here comes John the Baptist, swinging an axe at the trunk of the law of Moses in order to make room for Christ's tender gospel to grow, telling us that membership in a given group is not what saves us:

   [Do] not say:
   We have Abraham
   to our father:
   for I say unto you,
   That God is able
   of these stones
   to raise up children
   unto Abraham.

(Luke 3:8)

So what matters in the end?  The wild prophet invites us to "bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. . . . [He] which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Luke 3:8-9)

​What Are Worthy Fruits?

If you're wondering, as I am, what a "worthy" fruit looks like, John tells us:

   And the people asked him, saying,
   What shall we do then?

   He answereth and said unto them,
   He that hath two coats,
   let him impart to him 
   that hath none;
   and he that hath meat,
   let him do likewise.

Now the fun part!  What did John tell the religious leaders?

   Then came also the publicans
   to be baptized, and said
   unto him, Master,
   what shall we do?

   According to the custom 
   of their law [they] receiv[ed]
   money into the treasury, 
   that out of the abundance
   which was received,
   was appointed unto the poor,
   every man his portion;

   And after this manner 
   did the publicans also,
   wherefore, John said
   unto them, 
   Exact no more
   than that which is
   appointed unto you.

(KJV Luke 3:12-13; JST Luke 3:19-20)

Let's summarize:  God forbids religious leaders exacting that which He has "appointed unto the poor."

This is what Malachi was referring to!

   Will a man rob God?
   Yet ye have robbed me.
   But ye say,
   Wherein have we robbed thee?
   In tithes and offerings.

Imagine those words being spoken to the religious leaders, who control the finances of a church.  Cross reference that with the story of the sons of Eli found in 1 Samuel 2:12-36.  (If you read that passage, you'll get the gist of what we're talking about.)

   I will raise up 
   a faithful priest,
   that shall do
   according to that 
   which is in mine heart
   and in my mind.

(Samuel 2:35)

Hobby Horses

Guess the most common subjects taught by Jesus? 

   Money
   The Kingdom of God/heaven
   Faith
   Hell

Hmm.  What if these things were all related somehow?

Sing a Song of Sixpence

Pretend you wanted to create a common pool of money for your extended family.  We'll call it The Family Piggy Bank ("FPB").   

The idea is for everyone to contribute what they can into a joint fund so that when a family member has a special need they can receive financial assistance from the FPB.

   The king was in his counting house
   Counting out his money;
   The queen was in the parlour,
   Eating bread and honey.

Questions:

1.  Who will be in charge of deciding whether someone qualifies for a distribution from the FPB?  Father, or grandfather?  Mother or sister?  A committee of crazy uncles?  

2.  What sorts of things will be covered?  Ongoing monthly expenses?  One time emergencies?

3.  What if a habitually-needy member drains the FPB?  Is there a cap on how much a single member can receive?

4.  What if so-and-so never contributes anything to it; can they still withdraw from the FPB?

5.  Will the money in the FPB be invested, and if so, who gets to decide how it will be invested?  Should it be in low-bearing interest bonds or in risky stocks?

6.  Should the names of those receiving assistance be kept confidential? 

7.  What rights do members of the family have to an accounting of the funds?  Should there be transparency or secrecy?

8.  Should the money in the FPB be given as a gift, or should it be given as a non-interest bearing loan?  If loans, what happens if a family member doesn't repay their debt?   

​   The maid was in the garden
   Hanging out the clothes,
   When down came a blackbird
   And pecked off her nose.

The Problem

​​It is easy to give away money.

And it is easy to be generous with other people's money.  Is it hard to write a check to the church, or to our favorite charity, and forget about it?  But if we wash our hands of how the money is spent, how can the hearts of the giver and receiver be united?  How does it sanctify the offering so God can be glorified?  

Paying our dues is not where our duty ends, it is where it begins!

The example of a family slush fund (FPB) is actually real.  In my family we floated the idea around.  But it never happened because there were too many concerns about fairness and how the money would be administered. 

Yes, even in the close and loving environment of a family we were unable to create a simple trust fund. 

Why did we fail?

Now include a couple more families and you get the idea.  The challenge we face is learning to love each other more than we love "fairness."  

Our Fairness Bone

I think we were all born with a funny bone and a fairness bone.  We hit our fairness bone every day.  "But I walked the dog yesterday!" "She got a raise?" "I've stood in line longer than they have."  

Was it fair for Christ to descend below all?  Was it fair for him to suffer for our sins?  Was his forgiveness fair?  No.

   Are we not all beggars?
   Do we not all depend
   upon the same Being,
   even God, for all
   the substance which we have,
   for both food and raiment,
   and for gold, and for silver,
   and for all the riches 
   which we have?

   O then, how ye ought 
   to impart of your substance
   that ye have one to another.

(Mosiah 4:19, 21)

Outsourcing our alms does not help us learn how to do that.  How to love each other.  It does not get us closer to Zion.

   When the pie was opened
   The birds began to sing;
   Wasn't that a dainty dish,
   To set before the king.

Inequality is Like a Common Cold

Have you ever wondered why haven't we discovered a cure for the common cold?  We've solved polio, smallpox and lots of other things.  

Well, there is no such thing as "the" common cold.  Immunologists believe there are at least 160 strains of rhinovirus running around, so we really need 160 different cures.  That's a lot of shots.
​
We haven't been able to solve inequality because, like the common cold, there are too many causes.  For starters:

   Differences in wages
   Differences in productivity
   Differences in the labor market
   Differences in education
   Differences in ability
   Differences in government control
   Differences in gender
   Differences in technology
   Pride
   Idleness
   Selfishness

One of the most interesting observations in the Book of Mormon comes just before the collapse of Nephite society:

   Some were lifted up
   unto pride and boasting
   because of their exceedingly
   great riches . . .

   For there were many merchants 
   in the land, and also many lawyers,
   and many officers.

   And the people began
   to be distinguished by ranks,
   according to their riches
   and their chances for learning.

(3 Nephi 6:10-12)

Wealth Concentration

Several years ago my brother recommended I read a book by French economist Thomas Piketty.  The book is called Capital in the Twenty-First Century.  

I went to the local library and checked it out.  I read some of it, but most of it was over my head.  I do remember one thing: having wealth makes it easier to accumulate more wealth (seems obvious).  This process is called "wealth concentration."  Over time, wealth consolidates in fewer individuals, who pass it to their children, and the cycle continues.​

The Solution?

Amazingly, I think we know the solution.  It was taught by Christ 2000 years ago.  It was highlighted 200 years ago.  

The issue is not that we don't know what to do; so why don't we do it?  

   It is my purpose to provide
   for my saints,
   for all things are mine.

   But it must needs be done
   in mine own way;
   and behold, this is the way
   that I, the Lord, have decreed
   to provide for my saints,
   that the poor shall be exalted,
   in that the rich are made low.

   For the earth is full,
   and there is enough to spare;
   yea, I prepared all things
   and have given unto the children
   of men to be agents
   unto themselves.

(D&C 104:15-17)

And there we have it.  The answer.

Simple as pie.

   Sing a song of sixpence,
   A pocket full of rye.
   Four and twenty blackbirds,
   Baked in a pie.

(Reflection, by S.P. Bailey)

Origin Story

I wanted to respond to questions on how Owl of the Desert came to be. 

So this is an origin story. 

I clicked on the "Look Inside" link and began reading some of the poems.  One of the poems in the collection was by S.P. Bailey called "Prayer."  With his permission, I share it here:

Prayer
by S.P. Bailey

It was picture day. Me: a first grader. I was all ready.
Hair combed. Shirt tucked in tight. Tie clipped on.                                                          
Mom’s orders were clear:
no getting dirty or messing up my hair,
no riding my bike,
no playing in the sandpile,
no playing outside at all.
Those were all the things, especially being forbidden,
I needed to do that day.
I had already learned about the spirit of the law;
how it lets us forget the inconvenient parts
and mostly obey.
So I went to the playhouse, a shed in the back yard,
furnished with a child-sized pantry, table, chair.
It began to rain consequences:
the things you don’t plan for, but choose.
Afraid, hair and clothes already soaked in my mind,
I said a prayer.
Not a rain prayer I had heard before, not the asking or
thanking of desert people for "moisture."
It was the prayer now most familiar to me:
Let me not bear the bad thing I deserve.
The rain stopped. It stopped abruptly.
The thought ‘coincidence’ might have occurred to an adult,
logical, sterile-minded.
That adult might have offered tepid thanks:
"If You did that for me, I am grateful,"
as a scientific explanation fretted in the mind’s back room.
Not me. I knew I had seen the finger of the Lord.
Despite all those farmers’ pleas—for me—He stopped that deluge.
I walked across the back yard and inside.
My eyes: small stones burned by that revelation.

As I read those words, I felt the stirrings of the Spirit.  When I came to the line:

   not the asking or
   thanking of desert people for "moisture"

I poured out my heart in prayer.

And out of that experience I began writing these poems.

Rulers of Sodom

The first poem I wrote was Rulers of Sodom.  The title was taken from Isaiah chapter 1.

   Hear the word of the Lord,
   ye rulers of Sodom;
   give ear unto the law
   of our God, ye people
   of Gomorrah.

(Isaiah 1:10)

I wanted to evoke the feelings of defeat and helplessness we feel in the face of the law, in the face of judgment and self-righteousness.

In the stanza where I paraphrase Isaiah 1:11, I wanted to represent the futility of our "vain oblations" following the letter of the law, which Paul said "killeth" our souls (2 Cor. 3:6).

We find a fascinating statement in Isaiah 1:12:

כִּי תָבֹאוּ לֵרָאוֹת פָּנָי מִי־בִקֵּשׁ זֹאת מִיֶּדְכֶם רְמֹס חֲצֵרָי ׃

   When ye come to appear before me,
   who hath required this at your hand,
   to tread my courts?

Here the Lord is comparing us to dumb animal sacrifices, fouling his sacred ground, going about performing our religious duties without love, without life. 

I gained this insight from Avraham Gileadi, who wrote, "Instead of going to see Jehovah, his people resemble the dumb animals that were anciently brought for sacrifice, which were unaware of their reason for being there. Instead of making an offering of their whole souls to God—as symbolized by the burnt offerings and shedding of the animals’ blood—his people trudge about the temple’s courts defiling it."

(Isaiah Explained,    http://www.isaiahexplained.com/1#one_col​)

Reflection

It turns out S.P. Bailey is an artist as well as poet. 

His watercolor, above, Reflection, reminds me of Christ, who stands in the middle, at the center, uniting earth and heaven, man and God, the firmament above and the deep below.

It also makes me think of how each of us is like one of those little rectangles, standing together, reflecting God's vision as we work to create heaven on earth.

Of Good Report

I believe all of us have gifts from God that we can use to glorify his name and to strengthen each other.  Let's be creative: let's create something beautiful together.

   We believe all things,
   we hope all things,
   we have endured
   many things, and hope
   to be able to endure
   all things.  

   If there is anything 
   virtuous, lovely,
   or of good report
   or praiseworthy,
   we seek after 
   these things.

(Article of Faith 13)

In his essay Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau said:

   That government is best
   which governs least.

The debate over government overreach has recently spread across the country as states struggle to address the COVID-19 pandemic.  I have seen friends, neighbors and family strongly disagree on the appropriate role of government in mandating masks, schools closures, and so on.

So it is time we all agree on something: a little thing called "inalienable rights."

What are "inalienable rights"?  ​

1.  An inalienable right is a natural right.  Men and women intrinsically hold these rights.  They are universal.  We are endowed with therse rights by nature, or God's law.    

2.  Since the government does not create these rights (remember they come from God), the government therefore cannot take them away.

3  Governments pass what we call "positive law", which is another name for man-made law.

4.  When positive law attempts to infringe on inalienable rights, then people engage in civil disobedience to the law on the grounds of conscience.

5.  Natural rights include, according to John Locke, the right to (1) life; (2) liberty; and (3) property.

The Declaration of Independence

This was the basic premise of the American Revolution.  What do we do when government tries to abrogate our natural rights?  

   That to secure these [inalienable] rights,
   governments are instituted among men,
   deriving their just powers
   from the consent of the governed--

   That whenever any form of government
   becomes destructive of these ends,
   it is the right of the people
   to alter or to abolish it,
   and to institute a new government.

(Declaration of Independence, 1776)

From California to the New York Island

Many states, including California and New York, have enacted public health restrictions due to coronovirus with little regard for inalienable rights.  

Elder David Bednar said recently:

   We the people must never allow
   [government officials] to forget
   that their offices and powers exist
   to secure our fundamental freedoms.

   Never again can we allow government
   officials to treat the exercise of religion
   as simply nonessential.  

   Never again must the fundamental right
   to worship God be trivialized 
   below the ability to buy gasoline.

(David A. Bednar, "And When He Came To Himself," delivered June 17, 2020, accessed at https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/bednar-byu-religious-freedom-review-speech)

Grace Community Church

It is one thing to say it.  It is another thing to do it.  The following statement was issued by Grace Community Church in California in response to Governor Newsom's closure orders.  I hope you will read this, for it is truly an incredible thing when men and women take a stand for Christ.

A Biblical Case for the Church’s Duty to Remain Open

Christ is Lord of all. He is the one true head of the church (Ephesians 1:22; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). He is also King of kings—sovereign over every earthly authority (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16). Grace Community Church has always stood immovably on those biblical principles. As His people, we are subject to His will and commands as revealed in Scripture. Therefore we cannot and will not acquiesce to a government-imposed moratorium on our weekly congregational worship or other regular corporate gatherings. Compliance would be disobedience to our Lord’s clear commands.

Some will think such a firm statement is inexorably in conflict with the command to be subject to governing authorities laid out in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Scripture does mandate careful, conscientious obedience to all governing authority, including kings, governors, employers, and their agents (in Peter’s words, “not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable” [1 Peter 2:18]). Insofar as government authorities do not attempt to assert ecclesiastical authority or issue orders that forbid our obedience to God’s law, their authority is to be obeyed whether we agree with their rulings or not. In other words, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 still bind the consciences of individual Christians. We are to obey our civil authorities as powers that God Himself has ordained.

However, while civil government is invested with divine authority to rule the state, neither of those texts (nor any other) grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church. God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church. Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected. A father’s authority is limited to his own family. Church leaders’ authority (which is delegated to them by Christ) is limited to church matters. And government is specifically tasked with the oversight and protection of civic peace and well-being within the boundaries of a nation or community. God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the church. The biblical framework limits the authority of each institution to its specific jurisdiction. The church does not have the right to meddle in the affairs of individual families and ignore parental authority. Parents do not have authority to manage civil matters while circumventing government officials. And similarly, government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders.

When any one of the three institutions exceeds the bounds of its jurisdiction it is the duty of the other institutions to curtail that overreach. Therefore, when any government official issues orders regulating worship (such as bans on singing, caps on attendance, or prohibitions against gatherings and services), he steps outside the legitimate bounds of his God-ordained authority as a civic official and arrogates to himself authority that God expressly grants only to the Lord Jesus Christ as sovereign over His Kingdom, which is the church. His rule is mediated to local churches through those pastors and elders who teach His Word (Matthew 16:18–19; 2 Timothy 3:16–4:2).

Therefore, in response to the recent state order requiring churches in California to limit or suspend all meetings indefinitely, we, the pastors and elders of Grace Community Church, respectfully inform our civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction, and faithfulness to Christ prohibits us from observing the restrictions they want to impose on our corporate worship services.

Said another way, it has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship. When, how, and how often the church worships is not subject to Caesar. Caesar himself is subject to God. Jesus affirmed that principle when He told Pilate, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above” (John 19:11). And because Christ is head of the church, ecclesiastical matters pertain to His Kingdom, not Caesar’s. Jesus drew a stark distinction between those two kingdoms when He said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17). Our Lord Himself always rendered to Caesar what was Caesar's, but He never offered to Caesar what belongs solely to God.

As pastors and elders, we cannot hand over to earthly authorities any privilege or power that belongs solely to Christ as head of His church. Pastors and elders are the ones to whom Christ has given the duty and the right to exercise His spiritual authority in the church (1 Peter 5:1–4; Hebrews 13:7, 17)—and Scripture alone defines how and whom they are to serve (1 Corinthians 4:1–4). They have no duty to follow orders from a civil government attempting to regulate the worship or governance of the church. In fact, pastors who cede their Christ-delegated authority in the church to a civil ruler have abdicated their responsibility before their Lord and violated the God-ordained spheres of authority as much as the secular official who illegitimately imposes his authority upon the church. Our church’s doctrinal statement has included this paragraph for more than 40 years:

We teach the autonomy of the local church, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). We teach that it is scriptural for true churches to cooperate with each other for the presentation and propagation of the faith. Each local church, however, through its elders and their interpretation and application of Scripture, should be the sole judge of the measure and method of its cooperation. The elders should determine all other matters of membership, policy, discipline, benevolence, and government as well (Acts 15:19–31; 20:28; 1 Corinthians 5:4–7, 13; 1 Peter 5:1–4).

In short, as the church, we do not need the state's permission to serve and worship our Lord as He has commanded. The church is Christ’s precious bride (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:23–27). She belongs to Him alone. She exists by His will and serves under His authority. He will tolerate no assault on her purity and no infringement of His headship over her. All of that was established when Jesus said, “I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matthew 16:18).

Christ’s own authority is “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And [God the Father has] put all things in subjection under [Christ’s] feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:21–23).

Accordingly, the honor that we rightly owe our earthly governors and magistrates (Romans 13:7) does not include compliance when such officials attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt biblical morality, exercise ecclesiastical authority, or supplant Christ as head of the church in any other way.

The biblical order is clear: Christ is Lord over Caesar, not vice versa. Christ, not Caesar, is head of the church. Conversely, the church does not in any sense rule the state. Again, these are distinct kingdoms, and Christ is sovereign over both. Neither church nor state has any higher authority than that of Christ Himself, who declared, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18).

Notice that we are not making a constitutional argument, even though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution expressly affirms this principle in its opening words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The right we are appealing to was not created by the Constitution. It is one of those unalienable rights granted solely by God, who ordained human government and establishes both the extent and the limitations of the state's authority (Romans 13:1–7). Our argument therefore is purposely not grounded in the First Amendment; it is based on the same biblical principles that the Amendment itself is founded upon. The exercise of true religion is a divine duty given to men and women created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27; Acts 4:18–20; 5:29; cf. Matthew 22:16–22). In other words, freedom of worship is a command of God, not a privilege granted by the state.

An additional point needs to be made in this context. Christ is always faithful and true (Revelation 19:11). Human governments are not so trustworthy. Scripture says, “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). That refers, of course, to Satan. John 12:31 and 16:11 call him “the ruler of this world,” meaning he wields power and influence through this world’s political systems (cf. Luke 4:6; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12). Jesus said of him, “he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). History is full of painful reminders that government power is easily and frequently abused for evil purposes. Politicians may manipulate statistics and the media can cover up or camouflage inconvenient truths. So a discerning church cannot passively or automatically comply if the government orders a shutdown of congregational meetings—even if the reason given is a concern for public health and safety.

The church by definition is an assembly. That is the literal meaning of the Greek word for “church”--ekklesia—the assembly of the called-out ones. A non-assembling assembly is a contradiction in terms. Christians are therefore commanded not to forsake the practice of meeting together (Hebrews 10:25)—and no earthly state has a right to restrict, delimit, or forbid the assembling of believers. We have always supported the underground church in nations where Christian congregational worship is deemed illegal by the state.

When officials restrict church attendance to a certain number, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the saints to gather as the church. When officials prohibit singing in worship services, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the people of God to obey the commands of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. When officials mandate distancing, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible to experience the close communion between believers that is commanded in Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:26. In all those spheres, we must submit to our Lord.

Although we in America may be unaccustomed to government intrusion into the church of our Lord Jesus Christ, this is by no means the first time in church history that Christians have had to deal with government overreach or hostile rulers. As a matter of fact, persecution of the church by government authorities has been the norm, not the exception, throughout church history. “Indeed,” Scripture says, “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). Historically, the two main persecutors have always been secular government and false religion. Most of Christianity’s martyrs have died because they refused to obey such authorities. This is, after all, what Christ promised: “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). In the last of the beatitudes, He said, “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11–12).

As government policy moves further away from biblical principles, and as legal and political pressures against the church intensify, we must recognize that the Lord may be using these pressures as means of purging to reveal the true church. Succumbing to governmental overreach may cause churches to remain closed indefinitely. How can the true church of Jesus Christ distinguish herself in such a hostile climate? There is only one way: bold allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Even where governments seem sympathetic to the church, Christian leaders have often needed to push back against aggressive state officials. In Calvin's Geneva, for example, church officials at times needed to fend off attempts by the city council to govern aspects of worship, church polity, and church discipline. The Church of England has never fully reformed, precisely because the British Crown and Parliament have always meddled in church affairs. In 1662, the Puritans were ejected from their pulpits because they refused to bow to government mandates regarding use of the Book of Common Prayer, the wearing of vestments, and other ceremonial aspects of state-regulated worship. The British Monarch still claims to be the supreme governor and titular head of the Anglican Church.

But again: Christ is the one true head of His church, and we intend to honor that vital truth in all our gatherings. For that preeminent reason, we cannot accept and will not bow to the intrusive restrictions government officials now want to impose on our congregation. We offer this response without rancor, and not out of hearts that are combative or rebellious (1 Timothy 2:1–8; 1 Peter 2:13–17), but with a sobering awareness that we must answer to the Lord Jesus for the stewardship He has given to us as shepherds of His precious flock.

To government officials, we respectfully say with the apostles, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge” (Acts 4:19). And our unhesitating reply to that question is the same as the apostles’: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Our prayer is that every faithful congregation will stand with us in obedience to our Lord as Christians have done through the centuries.

(accessed at ​https://www.gracechurch.org/forms/786)

Conclusion . . . or just the beginning?

We made it!  This is Part 13 and the conclusion of the series Teach Us Thy Statutes, Thy Law.  (Thirteen is a lucky number, right?)

If you haven't read the first 12 entries in this series yet, it might help you get your bearings to read those first.  Good luck!

A Prayer

Before we get to it, I wish to invoke the following prayer, which is where the title of this series came from.

   O Lord, teach us Thy statutes,
   Thy law, and Thy commandments.

   Teach me, O Lord, the way
   of thy statutes;
   and I shall keep it
   unto the end.

   Give me understanding,
   and I shall keep thy law;
   yea, I shall observe it
   with my whole heart.

   Make me to go in the path
   of thy commandments;
   for therein I delight.

   Incline my heart 
   unto thy testimonies,
   and not to covetousness.

   Turn away mine eyes
   from beholding vanity;
   and quicken thou me
   in thy way.

(Psalms 119:33-37)

Amen.

Only True and Living Church

We need to figure out the relationship between all these things:

   "The" Church
   Church of God
   Kingdom of God
   Kingdom of Heaven
   Zion

Let's start with "The" Church by putting the following famous verse into context:

   Those to whom these commandments
   were given, might have power 
   to lay the foundation of this church,
   and to bring it forth out of obscurity
   and out of darkness,
   the only true and living church
   upon the face of the whole earth.

(D&C 1:30)

What makes a church "true and living"?  

Section 1 was given on November 1, 1831 when "this church" was known as the "Church of Christ."  The previous year, in April 1829, the Lord said:

   If this generation harden not their hearts,
   I will establish my church among them.

   Behold, this is my doctrine--
   whosoever repenteth 
   and cometh unto me,
   the same is my church.

   Whosoever declareth more 
   or less than this, the same
   is not of me, but is against me;
   therefore he is not of my 
   church.

(D&C 10:53, 67-68)

Is it possible the Lord is referring to different churches in Section 1 and in Section 10? 

Then There Is the Kingdom of God

On top of all these churches, we need to mention the Kingdom of God, which is a whole different enchilada.  Joseph Smith taught:

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

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

Well, there we have it.  There is a wall of separation between Church and Kingdom.

Then There is the Kingdom of Heaven

Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36).  So where is it?

   We see that whosoever will 
   may lay hold upon the word
   of God . . . and land their souls,
   yea, their immortal souls,
   at the right hand of God
   in the kingdom of heaven,
   to sit down with Abraham,
   and Isaac, and with Jacob,
   and with all our holy fathers,
   to go no more out.

(Helaman 3:29-30)

Jesus tried very hard to teach us something about this kingdom:

The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed a seed . . . the kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed . . . the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven . . . the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field . . . the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net . . .

Then There is Zion

Zion is "The Pure in Heart" (D&C 97:21).  Or those who possess "one heart and one mind" (Moses 7:18).  Or Enoch's city.  

What does the Lord promise to the pure in heart? 

   Blessed are the pure in heart:
   for they shall see God.

(Matt. 5:8)

Anywhere Christ dwells with his people is Zion.  To me, that would be heaven.

   And Enoch and all his people
   walked with God,
   and he dwelt in the midst
   of Zion.

(Moses 7:69)  

What does "True and Living" Mean?

Okay, now let's get into our Time Machine and go back to 1831 and take a snapshot of the Church of Christ.  How was it structured in 1831 when the Lord called it "true and living"?

Structure of Church of Christ (1831)

First Elder and apostle: Joseph Smith (D&C 20:2)
Second Elder and apostle: Oliver Cowdery (D&C 20:3)
Presiding Bishop: Edward Partridge.
Other offices:  elders, priests, teachers and deacons (D&C 20:38)

That's it. That's all.  Really.  

In 1831 there were:

1.  No high priests (those didn't exist until 1831, and D&C 20:66-67 were subsequently added).  
2.  No First Presidency (didn't exist until 1833; see Section 90)
3.  No Quorum of Twelve Apostles (didn't exist until 1835)
4.  No Presiding Patriarch (1833)
5.  No Quorum of Seventy (1835)

What if the thing that makes a church "true and living" is not the organization, the hierarchy, the offices, the priesthood?

The priesthood is always being reorganized and changing, anyway (I mean, maybe someday we'll figure out what is up with the Seventies).

We knew this already intuitively, didn't we, because haven't we all thought it odd that an "organization" could be characterized as 'true' or 'living'?  

So What is True and Living?

What else could the Lord have been referring to?  Well, he already told us back in 1829.  When he said his church is those who "repenteth and cometh unto me" (D&C 10:67).  That's His church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is our church.  It is literally in the name!

The reason this is all so confusing is because there are members of His church who also belong to our church.  And there are people who are not members of our church who are members of His church.  And there are members of our church who are not members of His church.  

   Many will say to me 
   in that day, Lord, Lord,
   have we not prophesied
   in thy name? and in thy name
   cast out devils? and in they name
   done many wonderful works?

   And then will I profess unto them,
   I never knew you:
   depart from me,
   ye that work iniquity.

(Matt. 7:23-24)

Dual Citizenship

Bruce R. McConkie said, "The purpose of the church on earth is to prepare us for an inheritance in the church in heaven" (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.337). 

I take Elder McConkie's statement to mean that our earthly churches are preparatory; pass-throughs or stepping stones towards something greater.  

What is the "true and living church"? 

The true and living church would be the church that exists in heaven, right?  The one that is eternal?

Surprise!  It is not an institution or organization but the body of Christ (whose body is indeed full of truth and life).  Paul said:

   For as the body is one,
   and hath many members,
   and all the members 
   of that one body,
   being many, are one body:
   so also is Christ.

   Now ye are the body
   of Christ.

(1 Corinthians 12:12, 27)

Who belongs to the "body of Christ"? 

   Those who have been begotten
   in His blood, His children,
   the family of God,

   who are the living
   sons and daughters
   and true followers
   of the Son of God,

   who breathe His truth,

   His way,
   His Spirit,
   His law,
   His word,
   His light,
   His life,
   His love,

   even those who belong
   to the Church of the Firstborn.

Conclusion

I love the church and the fellowship of my brothers and sisters.  I also find it helpful to maintain an eternal perspective:

   The church is not Zion;
   Zion is the pure in heart.

   The church is not the kingdom of God;
   the Kingdom of God as envisioned by Joseph Smith awaits restoration.

   The church organization is not "living and true";
   the Lord's people, or Body of Christ, is. 

Here is our hope:

   Prepare ye the way of the Lord,
   prepare ye the supper of the Lamb,
   make ready for the Bridegroom.

   Call upon the Lord,
   that his kingdom may go forth
   upon the earth,

   that the inhabitants thereof
   may receive it,
   and be prepared
   for the days to come,
   in the which the Son of Man
   shall come down in heaven,
   clothed in the brightness
   of his glory, to meet
   the kingdom of God
   which is set up on the earth.

   Wherefore, may the kingdom of God
   go forth, that the kingdom of heaven
   may come.

(D&C 65:3, 5-6)

Frivolous Suits

​One of the strangest lawsuits ever filed was in 1971 when Gerald Mayo sued Satan in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Really.

The basis of Mr. Mayo's legal claim was that Satan had "deprived him of his constitutional rights."  

Unfortunately, the case was dismissed by the Court because Mr. Mayo failed to include instructions on how the U.S. Marshal could serve process on Satan.  

Tim(e) To Play Devil's Advocate

Today I am going to be a Devil's Advocate and ARGUE FOR A HIERARCHY.

Exhibit A:  The Angelic Choir

Heaven has a hierarchy, as we see illustrated by the angelic choirs.  As we climb Jacob's Ladder, we pass through different levels, or ranks, of heavenly beings.  There are 8 or 9 steps on the ladder, as follows:

   Angels (bottom)
   Archangels
   Principalities
   Powers
   Virtues
   Dominions
   Thrones
   Cherubim
   Seraphim (top)

Cherubim (literally: "one who blesses") guard the tree of life and the throne of God.  These are the "heavies" in heaven.

Seraphim (literally: "burning ones") are angels who dwell in everlasting burnings and serve before God's throne.
​
Try the Spirits

We know that men can give uninspired counsel, but can angels?  We'd like our angels to be fool-proof; after all, they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.  Or do they?  

Is it possible for an angel to not speak by the power of the Holy Ghost?  Can they opine on their favorite pro football team or whether socks should be worn with sandals?  Does every word they speak come from God, or do angels have their own minds and feelings and opinions? 

Well, look at Satan.  Angels have agency!  Even an angel "in authority" like Lucifer was free to deceive us.  How else could there have been a "war" in heaven unless everybody was able to speak their mind freely?

Isn't that why we are told to "try the spirits"?  

     Beloved, believe not every spirit,
     but try the spirits
     whether they are of God.

(1 John 4:1)

Isn't this why Paul said:

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

(Galatians 1:8)

Okay.  Now I'm worried.  Who can we trust? 

     And everything that is in the world,
     whether it be ordained of men,
     by thrones [think angels],
     or principalities [ditto],
     or powers [ditto]
     or things of name [nice catchall],
     whatsoever they may be,
     that are not by me or by my word,
     saith the Lord, shall be thrown down,
     and shall not remain after men are dead,
     neither in nor after the resurrection,
     saith the Lord your God.

(D&C 132:13) 

If all authority singularly flows from God, why do we have different stations?

Heaven is a Choir

Is the heavenly choir like our church choirs?  (Let's hope not.)  You know what I mean: a handful of members (usually more women than men) performing on Sunday as the congregation sits back and listens.  And there is usually that one soprano who sings like she's on the Metropolitan Opera stage.

Maybe there is not a choir in heaven so much as heaven itself is the choir.  Everybody enrolls; everybody wants to sing God's praises.  Hallelujah!

John saw a vision of all of creation singing the song of redeeming love:

     And they sung a new song,
     saying, Thou art worthy
     to take the book,
     and to open the seals thereof:
     for thou wast slain,
     and hast redeemed us
     to God by thy blood
     out of every kindred,
     and tongue, and people,
     and nation;

     And hast made us unto our God
     kings and priests:
     and we shall reign on the earth.

     And every creature which is in heaven,
     and on the earth, and under the earth,
     and such as are in the sea,
     and all that are in them, heard I saying,

     Blessing, and honour,
     and glory, and power,
     be unto him that sitteth
     upon the throne,
     and unto the Lamb
     for ever and ever. 

(Rev. 5:9-13)

My neighbor Rick is a bass.  I sing Baritone.  My friend Rob has a lovely Tenor voice.  And then we have Altos, Sopranos, Mezzo-Sopranos, and so on.

Question:  Do the Sopranos get to boss the Altos around?  Are Tenors better than Baritones? 

Of course not.  In a choir all of the voices are equal even though they are not the same.  All voices are kept in unison and harmony. 

But how? 

The Conductor

There is One who directs the music, who has composed a song of such beauty and wonder that it amazes me that he has chosen us to give voice to His creation, His brilliance, His incomprehensible glory. 

We take our cues from him.  We watch, our eyes fixed on His hands that bear the tokens of our salvation, gesturing and giving birth to the most glorious chords that resound with pure joy in our souls.  

His music is love. 

Exhibit B:  A New Testament Church

The Devil's Advocate Continues: 

Just as there is a hierarchy in heaven, Christ created a church composed of apostles and seventies here on earth. 

The priesthood requires each man, or woman, to know their place and rank in order to maintain "order" in God's house.  There are "greater" and "lesser" priesthoods, and we do not want the Deacons to be running the show, do we?

Order 66

What if "order" was not a function of an organizational structure?  Could "order" refer to something else? 

Could it refer to a taxonomy? 

To a temporal sequence or pattern in an eternal round? 

To a group of sons of God who follow after the Holy Order of the Son of God?

Priesthood Offices

     Of necessity there are presidents,
     or presiding officers
     growing out of,
     or appointed of
     or from among 
     those who are ordained
     to the several offices
     in these two priesthoods.

Question:  What is a "presiding officer"? 

George Washington was unanimously elected the President, or presiding officer, of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  Did George Washington use his role as President to dictate the terms of the new Constitution?  Not at all.  He remained relatively quiet.  He presided over the delegates as they debated and decided for themselves.  He helped shape their vision and inspired them.  He built consensus and held the fragile dream together against all odds.  And he succeeded because the delegates respected and loved him.

What if priesthood offices were not about who gets to sit in the high seats?  Here's a thought: what if priesthood was not even really about "us", but about Christ?

     The priesthood hath continued
     [with you] through the lineage
     of your fathers--

     For ye are lawful heirs,
     according to the flesh,
     and have been hid
     from the world with Christ
     in God--

     Therefore, your life
     and the priesthood
     have remained,
     and must needs remain
     through you and your lineage
     until the restoration
     of all things spoken by the mouths
     of all the holy prophets
     since the world began.

(D&C 86:8-10)

An Heir 

What is an heir?  It is someone who stands in line to inherit once the testator is dead.  What do we have to do to "inherit"?  Become an heir.  Well, now we've come full circle.

Joseph Smith's attempt at creating unity or equality in the organization of the priesthood was unsuccessful.  Instead of heirs we've created hierarchy.  How did that happen?

The problems the saints faced in 1833 have only deepened since:

     I say unto you,
     there were jarrings,
     and contentions,
     and envyings,
     and strifes,
     and lustful and covetous desires
     among them; therefore
     by these things they polluted 
     their inheritances.

(D&C 101:6)

How do we "pollute" the inheritance of the priesthood?  Could "lustful and covetous desires" apply to priesthood authority and status?

The Inevitable Apostasy

Dalek:  Exterminate! 
Cyberman: Delete! Delete!
Dalek:  Exterminate! Exterminate!
The Doctor:  What are you guys fighting about?

All churches, all organized religions, drift into apostasy over time.  It is rarely a cataclysmic plunge; it usually is a gentle sliding downward, line upon line, precept upon precept, taking away here a little, and there a little.

If any church got off on the right foot, it was the Nephite Church that Christ personally organized in 3rd Nephi 11 - 27.  What were the trademark qualities of the Nephite Zion?

   1.  There were no contentions (4 Ne. 1:2)
   2.  All men dealt justly with one another
   3.  They had all things in common (4 Ne. 1:3)
   4.  There were not rich or poor
   5.  They performed mighty miracles (4 Ne. 1:5)
   6.  They no longer followed the law of Moses (4 Ne. 1:12)
   7.  The love of God dwelt in the hearts of the people (4 Ne. 1:15)

Having "all things in common" does not just refer to money.  What else can we share?  What are the most important things to have "in common"? 

    And they had all things common
    among them; therefore 
    there were not rich and poor,
    bond and free,
    but they were all made free,
    and partakers of the heavenly gift.

(4 Nephi 1:3)

Whatever this "heavenly gift" was, it was bestowed upon the people because they "were all made free."  

After a few generations the Church broke up ("it's not you, it's me").  Why?  How could they apostatize from the love of God and heavenly gift?

     There began to be among them
     those who were lifted up in pride.

     They began to be divided
     in classes; and they began
     to build up churches
     unto themselves
     to get gain.

    Yea, there were many churches
     which professed to know the Christ,
     and yet they did deny the more parts
     of his gospel.

(4 Nephi 1:27)

So how do hierarchies contribute towards apostasy?  How do they enable pride, class division, the accumulation of wealth, and the dilution of the pure gospel?

Excuse Me, Mr. Webster

I am going to try to define "apostasy." 

I suggest the most common form of apostasy is the the gradual creep towards legalism as those "in charge" solidify their brand of orthodoxy and reject those who are heterodox.  In order to maintain their status, they embellish some things and erase other things to shape a desired narrative. 

Think of the Pharisees.  They were Moses's star pupils!  Or were they?  They viewed themselves as law-abiding Jews, but in reality they twisted Moses's law to serve their needs and were filled with envy (see Matt. 27:18).

Pure religion sinks under the weight of the traditions of men. 

Exhibit C:  Efficiency and Productivity

​The Devil's Advocate Continues:

A status system maximizes labor and efficiency.  

*Silence*

Devil's Advocate:  Don't you have anything to say?

Tim:  No.  I agree. 

Devil's Advocate:  About time.

Fruit

Was the purpose of Christ's gospel to make us higher-achievers, better producers, or more efficient?

Devil's Advocate:  Hey!  You said . . .

Tim:  Tricked you, didn't I?  Okay, tell you what Devil, sir.  I'll save this for next time.

Welcome back to our discussion of the social framework for establishing Zion's laws on earth.

Freedom vs. Equality

The great paradox of Zion that makes the whole endeavor seem impossible is to be both equal and free.  

Is the following statement true or false?  Please take your time.

     For freedom and equality
     are sworn and everlasting
     enemies, and when one prevails
     the other dies.

(Will Durant, The Lessons of History, Simon and Schuster: New York, 1968, p. 20) 

I see wisdom in this statement.  If a system compels equality, then personal initiative is suppressed because men and women are not free to profit from their abilities.  But if you allow people to do whatever they want under laissez-faire, then inequality runs wild.

Where I Choose Sides

If you had to choose between freedom and equality, which would you choose?  

It's an easy choice for me: freedom. 

After all, who actually believes any -ism creates "equality"?  History has shown there is just an endless revolving door of people struggling to be king of the hill.

Was Tsarist Russia under the Romanovs better or worse than under Lenin?  Would you prefer Marie Antoinette or Robespierre?  General Mao became "the people's ruler" of China and brought Marxist-Lenin communism to the masses, ending the Qing dynasty and a 2,000 year old empire - but let's not forget he killed tens of millions of people on his climb to the top.  It should tell us something that there is a Wikipedia page devoted to "Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes."

Does the United States Have a Hierarchy?

That was a rhetorical question.  Of course the United States has a hierarchy.

"Status systems must always exist….The only possible choice for Americans is not between their status system and a perfect system of equality but between their kind of hierarchy and some other."  W. Lloyd Warner, American Life: Dream and Reality, rev. ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 127, 129.

“Yet for all the undeniable singularity of American history, the evidence is abundant that classes, class lines, and distinctions of status do exist and have always existed here, as elsewhere in the modern world.”  Edward Pessen, “Status and Social Class in America,” in Luther S. Luedtke, ed. Making America: The Society and Culture of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Information Agency [1987] 1988), p. 270.

I love the noble ideals upon which this nation was founded.  It began with the belief that:

     We hold these truths to be self-evident,
     that all men are created equal,
     that they are endowed by their Creator
     with certain inalienable rights,
     that among these are Life, Liberty,
     and the pursuit of happiness.

(Declaration of Independence) 

We haven't lived up to those ideals yet.

A Tree and a Skyscraper

I want us to visualize something from Lehi's Dream.  Picture the Tree of Life.  Imagine the way the people gather underneath its branches.  Do they stand in a queue?  Or do they form a circle around its trunk as they all reach for the precious fruit.  Isn't it interesting that a tree represents the love of God (1 Nephi 11:22).  

Now contrast that with the Great and Spacious Building.  What should we learn from the fact that a building represents the pride of the world (1 Nephi 12:18)?  This skyscraper symbolizes the vanity of mankind, a structure built without a foundation.  It "stood as it were in the air, high above the earth." 

Could the Great and Spacious Building, with all of its levels and penthouses and corner offices, symbolize the foolishness of organizing God's children into worldly ranks? 

Does Zion Have a Status System?

Question:  Why does the Lord always remove Zion from the earth?  Why not leave them here?  

Ah ha!  The rubber meets the road at last. 

Let's investigate the status system among Enoch's people and Melchizedek's people.

So let's summarize what we know about Enoch:

1.  He walked with God;
2.  He was a "preacher of righteousness" (Moses 6:23);
3.  He called upon "all men, everywhere, to repent";
4.  He taught faith unto the children of men;
5.  He was slow of speech (Moses 6:31);
6.  "All the people hate me," he said;
7.  He was viewed as a "wild man" (Moses 6:38);
8.  He built a "City of Holiness, even Zion" (Moses 7:19);
9.  He entered into the Enochian Covenant with God.

Doesn't sound like Enoch was the kind of guy who would have done well climbing the corporate ladder in the G&S Building.

Enoch recorded these words of Michael, who described the residents of the G&S: 

     And God shall put down
     the countenance of the strong,
     and fill them with shame.
     And darkness shall be their dwelling.

     These are they who judge
     the stars of heaven,
     And their power rests upon their riches,
     And their faith is in the gods 
     which they have made with their hands,
     And they persecute the houses
     of His congregations,
     And the faithful who hang
     upon the name of the Lord.

​(The Book of Enoch the Prophet, translated by R.H. Charles, p. 37)

What use for gold and silver did Enoch have, seeing as he was taken from the earth into the bosom of God?

2.  Melchizedek

You know, maybe I've been wrong all this time.  After all, Melchizedek was a king!  

     Melchizedek was a king
     over the land Salem;
     and his people had waxed strong
     in iniquity and abomination;
     yea, they had all gone astray.

     But Melchizedek having exercised
     mighty faith, and received the office
     of the high priesthood 
     according to the holy order of God,
     did preach repentance unto his people.

     And they did repent;
     and Melchizedek did establish peace
     in the land in his days; therefore
     he was called the prince of peace,
     for he was the king of Salem;
     and he did reign under his father.

(Alma 13:17-18)

So maybe there is a hierarchy in Zion.  But let's double check.  You know, measure twice, cut once.

Top Ten List

I think we need to "peer review" Melchizedek's kingship with another king.  Let's use King Benjamin.

What does it mean to be a king in the "holy order of God"?  What does it mean to "rule and reign" in the kingdom of heaven?  How does a "prince" establish peace and righteousness? 

Here's a checklist for aspiring "kings":

1.  Teach your people "in the language of your fathers" (Mosiah 1:2), to "read and understand the Lord's mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes" (Mosiah 1:5).

2.  Teach your people from the temple of God (Mosiah 2:7) to "keep the commandments of God, that they may prosper in the land" (Mosiah 1:7).

3.  Teach your people that a king is no better than his people, for "I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people and suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people" (Mosiah 2:11). 

4.  A king does not seek "gold nor silver nor any manner of riches" from his people (Mosiah 2:12).

5.  A king "labor[s] with [his] own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes" (Mosiah 2:14).

6.  A king does not permit his people to "be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another" (Mosiah 2:13).

7.  A king communes with angels (Mosiah 3:2).

8.  A king views his people as family, as "friends and brethren, my kindred" (Mosiah 4:4).

9.  A king "succors those that stand in need of succor" (Mosiah 4:16).

10.  A king facilitates the covenant between God and his people (Mosiah 5:6-8).

Now that we have established a baseline for righteous kingship, select which crown is more appropriate for a king in Zion:

To-may-to or To-mah-to?

Unlike gentile kings, a prince of peace does not "exercise Lordship" over others.  Christ showed us a righteous king is more like . . . a teacher.

     Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews,
     came to Jesus by night,
     and said unto him, Rabbi,
     we know that thou art a teacher
     come from God.

(John 3:2)

​Remember what the Lord told Nephi?  

     Thou shalt be made a ruler
     and a teacher
     over they brethren.

(1 Nephi 2:22)

Now let's see if this is true of Melchizedek as well.  We know he was a king of Salem as well as a high priest. 

     And thus being called
     by this holy calling,
     and ordained
     unto the high priesthood
     of the holy order of God,
     to teach his commandments
     unto the children of men,
     that they also might enter
     into his rest.

(Alma 13:6)  

Benjamin understood his role as king, calling his people to the temple to 

     declare unto you
     that I can no longer
     be your teacher,
     nor your king.

(Mosiah 2:29)

To rule means to teach.  Kings are teachers and mentors.

​Bondage?

And what is bondage? 

A status system? A hierarchy?

     And the whole world 
     lieth in sin, and groaneth 
     under darkness 
     and under the bondage of sin.

     And by this you may know 
     they are under the bondage of sin, 
     because they come not unto me.

     For whoso cometh not unto me 
     is under the bondage of sin.

     And whoso receiveth not my voice 
     is not acquainted with my voice, 
     and is not of me.

     And by this you may know 
     the righteous from the wicked, 
     and that the whole world 
     groaneth under sin 
     and darkness even now.

(D&C 84:49-53)

What keeps a person from coming unto Christ?  What keeps a person from receiving His voice?  

What is it about the structure of a status system that makes it harder for us to hear His voice? 

You'll recall this series, Stewards of Grace, is about economic disparity among believers and its impediment to Zion.  So keep that in mind as we talk about a few concepts first.

Where I Rewrite Scripture

It seems like it would be easy to be "one" with our family, when in fact they are some of the most difficult people to love.  Talk about "diamonds in the rough."

Isn't it easier to love from afar, at arms length, rather than cheek to cheek?  Proximity reveals our imperfections as a jeweler's loupe.

     For if a man know not
     how to rule his own house,
     how shall be take care
     of the church of God?

(1 Timothy 3:5)

You know my feelings about the word "rule".  So if you don't mind I will change it.  Do not worry about "wresting" the scriptures: I am simply going to look for a more accurate translation (remember, Article of Faith 8, and all).

English Standard Version (Formal Equivalence)

     For if someone does not know
     how to manage his own household,
     how will he take care
     for God's church?

New International Version (Dynamic Equivalence)

     If anyone does not know
     how to manage his own family,
     how can he take care
     of God's church?

Hmm.  "Manage" is a little better, but it still seems . . . businesslike.  So I guess I'll have to take a stab at this after all.  Here we go:

Tim's English Version (Formal Dunce Equivalence)

     For if a man does not know
     how to preside in his family,
     how can he be a blessing 
     to God's people?

Before you reach for pitchforks, I must admit I am indebted to Spencer W. Kimball (who will always be my spirit animal, or prophet, or whatever; I miss him) for helping me with my translation. 

​When referring to God giving Adam the right to "rule" over Eve, President Kimball said:

     I would prefer to use the word preside
     because that's what he does.
     A righteous husband presides
     over his wife and family.

(Ensign, March 1976, p. 72)

(Spencer and Camilla Kimball, courtesy of Church Archives)

Preside or Patricide?

What does "presiding" really mean?  

Let's use God as our example.  "Presiding" entitles a person to:

1.  Love and cherish their children;
2.  Nurture and care for their needs;
3.  Teach them correct principles;
4.  Provide tender correction;
5.  Sacrifice for their good;
6.  Honor their agency and desires;
7.  Inspire them with faith and hope;
8.  Fight the devil for their souls;
9.  Lead by righteous example;
10.  Provide them opportunities to grow;
11.  Introduce them to new experiences;
12.  Help them thrive and live their best lives;
13.  Listen -- really listen with all our heart;
14.  Stand with them in sorrow and heartbreak;
15.  Comfort and calm their fears;
16.  Glory in their successes;
17.  See the very best in them;
18.  Make intercession on their behalf.

Since when did "presiding" mean "being in charge"?  Because isn't the Lord already in charge?  Earthly fathers and priests are merely in loco parentis.  (Usually more "loco" than "parentis".)

Remember what I said about bishops in a previous post, Teach Us Thy Statutes, Thy Law: Part II?  Now I am going to change "bishop" to "husband or father":

If I expect you to do something and obey my counsel because I am your [husband or father], rather than because my counsel is light, and truth, and spirit, even the spirit of Jesus Christ, then I am practicing [unrighteous dominion].

But it gets worse: if I expect you to do something and obey my counsel because I am your [husband or father], and in fact my counsel is not light, and not truth, and not spirit, even the spirit of Jesus Christ, then I am acting in the spirit of Anti-Christ.

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.  Love does not morph into different shapes or mean different things based on where we are, or with whom. 

A Word About "Equivocation"

In philosophy, the concept of "equivocation" means we use the same name to describe different things.  This is a problem because the speaker intends a certain meaning while his listener interprets it to mean something else.  It causes a lot of confusion, and has led to many debates in Sunday School.

I can't think of a word in the English language more susceptible to equivocation than "love."  How so?

1.  I love you.
2.  I love the weekend.
3.  I love chocolate cake.
4.  I love it when she makes me laugh.
5.  I love how the sun warms my skin.
6.  Love means never having to say you're sorry.
7.  Charity is the pure love of Christ. 

Well, we're using the same word, but do we really love our children the same as we love chocolate cake? (Don't answer that.)  

This is why the Greek philosophers created special words to distinguish the different kinds of "love."

The Four Loves​

First, there's romantic love, or Eros -- the "love" that makes Madison Avenue marketers into millionaires.

Second, there's brotherly love, or Philia.  

Third, there's the love we have for our family, or Storge.  Think of a mother's love for her children.

Finally, there's charity, or Agape, which is God's love, which is a universal love.

What Love is Love, But God's?

When I say "love," I usually mean charity, or agape.  This is the highest form of love because it is unconditional . . . OH NO.  I said it.  Now I've stepped in it.

Is God's Love Unconditional?

Yes.

As I Was Saying . . . 

In order to "preside" we need to have charity, or agape, because . . . what was that?  You think there's no such thing as unconditional love?

God's Love Is Not Unconditional

*sigh*  Do we really have to do this?

Fine.  I hope everyone is feeling Philia.  I am going to grab a Coke, and then this is happening.  

I'm back.  I love Coke Orange Vanilla.  

​Charity is Covenantal Love, or in other words, Some Reflections on the Holy Spirit of Promise 

When a couple gets married, they make certain covenants, or promises, to each other.  Covenants and love are mutually self-reinforcing.  I mean by that we enter into covenants with those we love, and those covenants operate to magnify our love -- both our love and our partner's. 

Think of it as taking my love (oxygen) and your love (hydrogen) and bonding them into one molecule, H2O. 

See how my love takes on a new aspect when it is combined with yours?  Our love, together, becomes something that neither of us "has" on our own.  (I do not take credit for this analogy; I am indebted to the brilliance of Blake Ostler).

But just because we have mixed two different loves together, like green and blue, doesn't mean we're going to get a something better.  Often taking two impure loves creates a toxic sludge.  (For now, just consider how needy and selfish our "love" can be).  

But I want to focus on the creative faculty of love: creating something new and unique. 

What we need to understand is that love is dynamic:  it grows and evolves as those in the covenant grow and evolve, until they obtain "pure love", which in turn purifies them.  

Just as Oxygen and Hydrogen combine into something more (Water), so are we transformed when we enter into a covenant with Christ.  We witness it everywhere.  An egg needs a sperm; chromosomes require two base pairs.  Love is literally written into our DNA.

This is one of my favorite symbols of Baptism: it is the the gate we pass through to become a New Creature.  This is not some hocus-pocus, metaphysical thing.

Love: Things As They Truly Are

Think of love as being an element, like nickel or phosphorus, but spiritually refined.  A pure element that is woven into the fabric of reality.   

1.  Einstein showed that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin.  
2.  Energy, or matter, cannot be destroyed; it can only be altered or transformed.
4.  Molecules "stick" together through a force of attraction we call "cohesion." 
5.  Cohesion is an intrinsic property of matter and refers to the attraction of molecules for other molecules of the same kind.

     For intelligence cleaveth
     unto intelligence;

     wisdom receiveth
     wisdom;

     truth embraceth
     truth;

     virtue loveth
     virtue;

     light cleaveth
     unto light;

     mercy hath compassion
     on mercy and claimeth her own;

     justice continueth
     its course and claimeth its own.

(D&C 88:40)

If we pretend love is a kind of energy, where does it come from?  Most energy is created by heat, light, motion, electricity, chemical reactions and gravity.  Energy can take the form of (1) potential energy or (2) kinetic energy. 

Coulomb's Law

The electrostatic force, for example, binds atoms together.  That's useful.

Coulomb's law was formulated by an 18th Century French physicist, who discovered F ∝ q1q2/r2.  I have no idea what that means, but according to Wikipedia it describes the force between a positively charged atomic nucleus and each of the negatively charged electrons in an atom.  This is the force that binds atoms together to form molecules.

Emergence

Now imagine you want to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of your children.  Philosophers describe a phenomenon called "emergence" which is when something has properties that its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact with something else.

What energy, or force, could create cohesion between us and Christ, making us "stick", or be sealed, together? 

     And above all
     these things
     put on charity,
     which is the bond
     of perfectness. 

(Colossians 3:14)  

Since we're having fun today with alternative translations:

NIV:

     And over all
     these virtues
     put on love,
     which binds them
     all together 
     in perfect unity.

Christ's love causes "emergence."  This power is the essence of the new and everlasting covenant, which spans our baptism (or rebirth) all the way to resurrection (or rebirth).  

     Wherefore, my beloved brethren,
     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 [this means: those who truly love 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)

If we want to become one with Them, we have to love as They do.  The scriptures refer to all of this as "sanctification."   

What does all this have to do with the question, "Is love unconditional?" 

I think of it like this:  love is the initiation and the covenant is the sealing; but thereafter love transforms the parties to it and thereby the nature of the covenant; and thus the covenant becomes the initiation and love becomes the sealing.  I view the culmination of the latter process as "the Holy Spirit of Promise."

Because of the laws of agency and consent, God cannot force two people to remain together forever: it remains their choice.       

The Holy Spirit of Promise seals the bond between a man and a woman by virtue of their love, which was, and is, and always will be the very Spirit of Christ, who is pure love ("God is Love"), and is the way we become connected to the True Vine. 

     He loveth those who will have him
     to be their God.
     Behold, he loved our fathers,
     and he covenanted with them,
     yea, even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;
     and he remembered the covenants
     which he had made.

     Behold, the Lord esteemeth 
     all flesh in one.

(1 Nephi 17:40, 35)

Can a party to a covenant break their promise?

   Absolutely.

Can God break His promise?

   Absolutely not. 

​Even if God cannot break his word on his end, we can choose to place many, many conditions on our love, can't we?

Thus the covenant is conditional, but only because we are free to either honor it or not honor it.

God (love) x (promise) x (unconditional) ÷ Our (love) x (promise) x (conditional) = covenant (conditional)

So when people say God's love is not unconditional, I think what they really mean is, "God does not have to honor the covenant if we break it."

Or we could say: when we are not faithful to a covenant, God is not bound to grant us the blessings associated therewith ("blessings are conditional"). 

Bringing Out the Big Guns

Here is the scripture most commonly used to show that God's love is conditional:

     If ye keep not my commandments,
     the love of the Father
     shall not continue with you,
     therefore you shall walk in darkness.

(D&C 95:12)

So many interesting things going on in this revelation.  First, the Lord says that the absence of love results in darkness.  It is almost like he is using "light" and "love" interchangeably.  But notice what it does not say: it does not say "my love shall not continue with you" but "the love of the Father shall not continue with you."  Is that significant?

Let's put this in context.  Section 95 was given in 1833 and involved the commandment to build the temple. 

We're not talking about "commandments" in a general sense.  The Lord is referring to one specific commandment: "the great commandment in all things, that I have given unto you concerning the building of mine house" (D&C 95:3).  

     I gave unto you a commandment
     that you should build a house,
     in the which house I design
     to endow those whom I have chosen
     with power from on high.

(D&C 95:8)

Recall that love, like light, exhibits both particle and wave properties.  I want to point out a logical inference.  This revelation is saying that the Father's love requires a House to be fully manifested on earth.  To be "endowed" with power requires, or is a consequence of, the Father's love continuing with us.    

Shocker.  This revelation is not talking about whether God loves the sinner (we already knew he does).  Instead, it is making an explicit connection between love, the Father, light, and a House. 

     They who are not chosen
     have sinned a very grievous sin,
     in that they are walking
     in darkness at noon-day.

(D&C 95:6)

Oh, so now we see what's going on.  The "very grievous sin" is choosing to walk "in darkness at noon-day." 

What does it mean to choose to walk in darkness?