Lance Armstrong

Remember Lance Armstrong?  He was an Olympic cyclist who held 7 championship titles for the Tour de France.

He was celebrated as a hero ― but that all ended when an exposé revealed Armstrong had secretly been using performance-enhancing drugs to win.

In the wake of the doping scandal, Armstrong went on television to give a public mea culpa.  He confessed to Oprah Winfrey in 2013 that he had used steroids throughout his career (including during his seven Tour de France wins).  

With profound regret, Armstrong said that his "mythic story was one big lie."

And so he fell from grace.  Armstrong was stripped of his titles by the Cycling Gods (or what is called the Union Cycliste Internationale).

But why should it matter that he used steroids?  Why does anyone care whether athletes dope?

Well, I suppose it's because if a person's success is artificial, then is it illegitimate?  If our performance is bolstered by forbidden drugs, should we get the credit?

The worst doping scandal in history, though, was not in athletics. 

It was in religion:

   * We can run the race (with priestcraft)

   * We can fight the good fight (with unrighteous dominion)

   * We can finish the course (with Mammon)

   * We can keep the faith (with the arm of flesh)

Such wonderful, awful drugs for religion!

Religious Doping

Jesus didn't call it "dope," of course.

More poetically, the Savior called these spiritual steroids "the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matthew 16:6).

   Then Jesus said unto them,
   Take heed and beware
   of the leaven of the Pharisees
   and of the Sadducees.

If I had been there, I probably would have been just as confused as the Lord's disciples; what on earth was He talking about?

   And they reasoned among
   themselves, saying,
   It is because we have
   taken no bread.

Here the disciples make a literal interpretation (I can hear their stomachs grumbling with hunger).  Was Jesus implying the Pharisees had poisoned their bread?  Was his warning about food safety?

In perhaps the biggest divine eye roll in all of scripture, Jesus says in response to their befuddlement:

   Do ye not yet understand,
   neither remember the five loaves
   of the five thousand,
   and how many baskets
   ye took up?

I think there's a critically important subtext to these words.  Jesus appears to be making a remarkable comparison between His gospel and the Pharisees' religion:

   (1) the Pharisees made their "dough" appear bigger by using yeast, which caused the dough to puff up in the bowl.  But yeast just creates air bubbles that collapse when you punch the dough down.

Whereas,

   (2) the Son of Man, the Bread of Life, did not require "yeast" to rise.  He was "unleavened" because He would rise by the power of the Father alone, not through manful attempts to spike the punch with a leavening ingredient ("the law"). 

Remember, Jesus kept the law; he fulfilled the law; but He wasn't saved by the law.

(He was Saved by the Bell: "In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses: Holiness unto the Lord" (Zech. 15:20).

Where was I?  Oh yes, to make his point plain, the Lord explained to His friends that the leaven represented "hypocrisy" (Luke 12:1).

What is religious hypocrisy?  Jesus made that clear when he called the Pharisees "hypocrites" (Matthew 23), accusing them of trying to buy their ticket to heaven through their own obedience to the law.

   Then understood they
   how that he bade them
   not beware of the leaven of bread,
   but of the doctrine of the Pharisees
   and of the Sadducees.

(Matt. 16:6-12)

The Pharisees, like religious Lance Armstrongs, thought they could dope their way into heaven.

Do we?

The Parable of the Bicycle

While we're on the topic of cycling, I'd like to extend the apostle Paul's metaphor regarding this "race" we're in (by the way, check out Clark Burt's modern retelling of Paul's epistle).

There are two points I want to make:

   (1)  We need to wear our helmets. 

I know, I know, bike helmets ruin our well-coiffed hairdos and make us look dumb. 

But dumb we are.  Alas, Paul said:  

   Take unto you the WHOLE
   armour of God . . . . 
   And take the helmet of salvation.

(Ephesians 6:13, 17)

Why does he equate our "salvation" with the helmet? 

I think the point here is that our "head" is Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:23); so putting on the helmet of our salvation is about making Christ our Head.

There is no salvation in our biker shorts or jerseys; so we might as well stop looking there for redemption.

   (2)  We aren't riding this bike alone.

Have you seen the bikes used in the Tour de France?  They're pretty expensive; you could buy a car for what one costs.

So what sort of bike are we racing?  Is it a tandem bike we ride with Christ?

If you've ever ridden a tandem bike, then you know the two riders must be in sync or they'll crash.  So that is an interesting idea.

But I think a better analogy is to picture a child's seat on its parents' bike.

We're riding along with Christ on His bike (not our own) ― and let's not get carried away, supposing we're His partner, pulling our weight, when in fact we are His child.

I mean, if we really think about it, we're not the adult in this relationship; we're not even pedaling the bike (!) ― we're the kid wearing the helmet looking clueless in the child seat.

Spiritually-Banned Steroids

One day in the future, when we're sitting around in heaven, I suspect many of us will look back on our time here on earth and realize we followed the path of the Pharisees ― thinking we were running this race by our own power and genius, using our muscled thighs to pedal along the straight and narrow path.

(Why else would the angels wear robes but to reveal their toned calves?)

In the Tour de France, the leader of the pack is called the "Tete de la course," the head of the race.  It is easy for us at Church to follow the Tete de la course, our priesthood leaders, who we might think are better and faster than we are, draping a yellow jersey on the Brethren.

But Christ doesn't lead as the Tete de la course.  Following Christ is not about "keeping up" with Him (we never could); instead, Christ is our Tete not because he's first, but because he's last.

I know that seems odd, because the person who comes in last doesn't win the race, but that is what Christ is doing: bringing up the rear with water bottles for those who are weary and who want to give up, making sure none of His sheep are left behind. 

   But he that is greatest among you
   shall be your servant.
   And whosoever
   shall exalt himself
   shall be abased;
   and he that shall
   humble himself
   shall be exalted.

(Matt. 23:11-12)
 
Look, let's not think we are running a race along the straight and narrow; the gospel is about grace, not performance; it is about endurance, not speed; it is about love, not ribbons.

There's no "last one home is a rotten egg" in the gospel (after all, if the gospel favored those who win first-place, then they alone get the good news; the rest of us would be losers.)

But Christ shows us a better way.  The challenge is this: we give lip-service to the gospel but deep down we want to bolster our performance artificially through the "arm [and leg] of flesh." 

If we had any other limbs I'm sure we would try to use them, too, to get ahead.

Are we seeking success by juicing the Good News of the gospel with money, control, dominion, status and inequality?

The Spiritual Side-Effects of Long-Term Doping

Have you noticed the Church is especially good at humble brags and soft boasts, the quiet voices in our meetings describing wayward souls and our relief not to be like them? 

I huff that stuff each Sunday. Sometimes I go home with a headache after all the doping.

"Yes, doping isn't great, but it’s for a good cause!  Surely a few baseball baptisms and inflated statistics and lying for the Lord and sexual abuse cover-ups are no big deal in comparison to the good we're doing, right?"

"Why shouldn't we cut corners and bend the laws of Christ a little, if it means bringing the Church prosperity and protecting its good name?"

"Yeah, the Church Handbook is filled with leaven, but [shrugging] the Church is not perfect.  What's wrong with replacing the emblems of the Lord's supper with a sacrament of steroids?"

Can members use Babylon's toolkit to build the kingdom of the Bride?

All roads in the Church are paved with the good intentions of leaders who think we can be domiciled into heaven by mass sterilization of faith and by quenching our spiritual gifts in exchange for obedience to authority.

When did worship come to mean doping on carnal security?  ("Praise to the man": "We thank thee O God for a Prophet"; "Follow the Prophet"; "God bless our Prophet Dear"; "Come, Listen to a Prophet's Voice".)

​Ummm.

Obedience is dope.

Obedience to carnal commandments ("the law") becomes the way we believe we’re "winning" through our own strength.

Someone might say, "Tim, what's the big deal?  Why shouldn't we shoot up a little?  Does it really harm anyone if we pay tithing and don't drink coffee and avoid premarital sex?"

Ah, there it is, friends: do you see the leaven working?

Being tithe-paying, chaste, coffeeless citizens means God is surely impressed with our goodness, right?

The steroids administered by carnal security come with side-effects.  We're talking spiritual impotency. 

A gospel of works over grace is always lethal to faith.

Bursting Lungs

People usually think drowning is caused by a lack of air due to the person being unable to breathe in, but it is actually the opposite.

We drown because we can't breathe out.  

Really!  The technical explanation is that carbon dioxide levels rise in a person's blood when they can't exhale, burning their lungs from the inside. 

The reason people underwater want so desperately to breathe is because of the pressure it causes: not to let air in, but to let the poisonous carbon dioxide out.

I don't know about you, but I confess that at times I feel like I am suffocating at Church.

It's not just the fact that we get what Clark Burt refers to as "the pulpit preaching of platitudes" and dogmas.

It's because there's so much I want to let out of me!  I want to praise God and to sing and pray with my arms raised and to dance between the pews like David in the streets and to rejoice with my brothers and sisters in the majesty of Christ and to exalt His name . . .

. . . but instead we're told to sit in wheelchairs and get shuffled around like patients in a convalescent home, told to "stay in your lane.  Swallow your pills.  Don't step in that steaming hot pile of purview!"

   Oh my.

Give God a Breath Mint

As a boy I visited my grandmother in Oregon every summer.  We would spend a week on the coast, staying near Depoe Bay (smallest bay in the world and a great place for whale watching).  I looked forward to going to Beverly Beach where I built sandcastles and where my mom would always warn me to watch out for dangerous undertows.

Well, her advice still applies.  Spiritually, there are currents seeking to pull us down, backwards, into the captivity of carnal commandments.

Christ to the rescue: Christ condescended, leaping off his lifeguard pedastal and jumps into the waves, catching us, and swims back to shore with us in His arms.

   The law in me is fulfilled,
   for I have come to fulfil the law;
   therefore it hath an end.

(3 Nephi 15:5)

An end?  I guess people just really don't want it to be over.  Because we keep returning to the law (the lesser law, like tithing) like a dog to its . . . you know.

Now our lifeless body is laid out on the sand, slimy with seaweed and pale as a corpse.  God leans down and gives us CPR.

But when God administers CPR to us, He does not place His lips over ours.

Instead, divine CPR is administered Mouth-to-Nose:

   And the Lord God breathed
   into his nostrils the breath of life;
   and man became a living soul.

(Genesis 2:7)

We sputter and vomit salt water.  In the Book of Mormon Jacob makes an allusion to this that is so subtle we will miss it if we blink twice:

   For the atonement satisfieth
   the demands of his justice
   upon all those who have not
   the law given to them,
   that they are delivered from
   that awful monster, death and hell,
   . . . and they are restored to that God
   who gave them breath,
   which is the Holy One of Israel.

(2 Nephi 9:26)

Notice it says we are "restored" to God (or I guess we could say, "resuscitated" to God). 

We're getting the idea, I think, that being a "living" soul requires us to take into ourselves the Breath of Life.  But what does the Breath of Life represent?

And why does the Breath of God have the opposite effect upon the wicked?  Isaiah tells us:

   And he shall smite the earth
   with the rod of his mouth,
   and with the breath of his lips
   shall he slay the wicked.

(Isaiah 11:4)

It seems like the scriptures are teaching us that the righteous are "righteous" for no other reason, apparently, than they breath in the same air as Christ exhales.

But the wicked?  That same air is toxic to them.

   Why?

I Didn't Inhale

​We find in the Book of Job (of all places) this fascinating reference to breath and noses:

   My breath is in me,
   and the spirit of God
   is in my nostrils.

(Job 27:3)

And Job quotes Eliphaz who says:

   By the blast of God they perish,
   and by the breath of his nostrils
   are they consumed.

(Job 2:9)

When we inhale, our lungs carry oxygen into our bloodstream.  But we exhale carbon dioxide and are powerless to convert that gas.  I mean, we cannot not breathe, right?  So every moment of every day we just walk about, polluting the atmosphere with every breath, our carbon dioxide leaving our lips.  It is a fact.  It is universal and indiscrimate.  It is just part of who we are.

It requires plants and trees, through the process of photosynthesis, to take that carbon dioxide in the air that we've exhaled, and to convert it back into oxygen using the sun.

That's right.  Are we seeing any spiritual parrallels yet?

CO2 (carbon dioxide) + H2O (water) + Light
   = 
O2 (oxygen) + CH2O (sugar)

Nose is Burning

I think we've all experienced the burn that comes when we snort chocolate milk through our nose when our lunchmate makes us laugh in the cafeteria.

But that is nothing compared to what the Israelites experienced when the Lord taught them a lesson using quail, after they complained about not having any meat to eat:

   For ye have wept in the ears
   of the Lord, saying, Who
   shall give us flesh to eat?
   for it was well with us in Egypt:
   therefore the Lord will give you
   flesh, and ye shall eat.

   Ye shall . . . [eat] 
   even a whole month,
   until it come out at your nostrils,
   and it be loathsome unto you:
   because that ye have
   despised the Lord.

(Numbers 11:18-20)

Let's make a modern application of this: if quail is pouring out of our nostrils, we're going to have trouble letting the Lord's breath in through our noses, won't we?

Our sinuses will be plugged with bird guts.  

And so it is today with our religion: we are stuffed with flesh; we are fed so much carnal security that it is seeping out of our noses. 

This isn't the flesh of quail, mind you, but the "arm of flesh."  We are taught to trust in authority figures over coming unto Christ.  We treat leaders as false gods and idols.

Is it any wonder we're short of Breath?

Smell the Lord

Jeremiah said "the anointed of the Lord" (that's Christ) is "the breath of our nostrils" (Lamentations 4:20).

What does the Lord smell like?

In Psalms we're told:

   All thy garments
   smell of myrrh,
   and aloes, and cassia.

(Psalms 45:8)

If you're wondering (as I was) what "cassia" is, it is cinnamon (so this Christmas season, when you smell pinecones scented with cinnamon, remember Who you're smelling!).

I think Isaiah offers a contrast when he says:

   And it shall come to pass,
   that instead of sweet smell
   there shall be stink.

(Isaiah 3:24)

Perhaps this "stink" is an allusion to apostasy, when people reject the sweet savour of the Lord's robes for the sweaty, stinky overalls worn by those who seek justification by "works."

Breathe in. 

   Breathe in Christ.

What is Going On?!

If "a typological interpretation of Laban's slaying" is a bit wordy, forgive me.  If that sounds dull, it's not! 

How about:

How can we make sense of Nephi killing Laban in the Book of Mormon?

Interested now?

This may seem like a tall order, but take comfort in the fact that we can't do any worse than Elder Renlund did in the past General Conference when he said:

"Some might point out that Nephi violated a commandment when he slew Laban. However, this exception does not negate the rule — the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God’s commandments.  No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory, but let me highlight some aspects:

   (1) The episode did not begin with Nephi asking if he could slay Laban.

[That's good I guess.  So premediated murder is bad.  Check.]

   (2)  It was not something he wanted to do.

[That's good I guess.  So we should not want to kill people.  Check.]

   (3) Killing Laban was not for Nephi’s personal benefit but to provide scriptures to a future nation and a covenant people.

[That's good I guess.  So we should only kill people for a higher, altruistic purpose.  Check.] 

   (4)  And Nephi was sure that it was revelation — in fact, in this case, it was a commandment from God."

[That's good I guess.  So we should only kill people when God tells us to, like the Lafferty brothers believed.  Check.]

(See, Dale G. Renlund, "A Framework for Personal Revelation," October 2022 General Conference)

All clear?

   Nope.

Nephi: 1  Laban: 0

Is it significant that the story of Nephi killing Laban is placed at the beginning of the Book of Mormon?

A reader can't get very far without encountering this befuddling episode.  In some cases it poses a deterrent for them because it screams against our notions of right-and-wrong.

I mean, we shouldn't be killing people over a book, right? 

   Right?

Wrong?

Huh.  Let's break it down: usually people approach the material from two different angles:

   (1)  Providing an apologetic for Nephi killing Laban based on Jewish law and custom, making Nephi's actions lawful and legally-justified (this includes writings by Jack Welch at BYU/FARMS); or

   (2)  Using the story as an example of following the Spirit vs. Letter of the law (as every missionary does at some point, *wink wink*).

I am not going to try to resolve the issues here by resorting to (1) or (2).  I will leave that in the hands of those who have greater wisdom than me.

Instead, the purpose of this post is to share with you what the Spirit taught me last week when I asked the Lord for greater understanding about it.

The Small Plates

Why did Nephi place this story at the beginning of the small plates? 

It is almost like this story was his "thesis statement" to introduce the remainder of his writings, which seem to primarily focus on latter-day eschatology using Isaiah to describe what he had been forbidden to write himself.

And because Nephi talked of, preached, rejoiced in and prophesied of Christ, I suspect we should look for some Christological meaning in this account as well.

   And Nephi gave me, Jacob,
   a commandment that I should
   write upon these [small] plates
   a few things which I considered
   to be most precious.

(Jacob 1:2)

I mean, as soon as Nephi is done giving us the Cliff Notes on his father Lehi in Chapter 1 and begins to discuss his own ministry, we spend two chapters right-out-of-the-gate on this story. 

It shows Nephi must have considered it "most precious."

In fact, Nephi tells us that:

   I do not write anything
   upon plates save it be
   that I think it be 
   sacred.

(1 Nephi 19:6)

So . . . what are we missing about this account of Laban?  What makes it "sacred?"

After Elder Renlund's talk, I went back to the drawing board, pondering what I should personally be gleaning from this story.

After all, we weren't there on the moonless night walking the streets of Jerusalem as Nephi "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which [he] should do" (1 Nephi 4:6). 

Our necks weren't on the line.

And yet, this story is central to Nephi's record and so we must treat it seriously.  I don't think Nephi would have included it on the plates if he didn't think it would be of great worth to us in the latter-days.  

We have to ask ourselves, then, what possible relevance does Nephi killing Laban have for you and me?

What is a Typology?

A "typology" is set of symbols that have a particular interpretation.  

One of the most famous typologies we have is the Book of Revelation by the apostle John, who used dragons and beasts and moons to illustrate truths symbolically (by the way, BYU Studies has published a free, modern translation of the Book of Revelation by Richard Draper and Michael Rhodes, which I thought was good).
​
One typology all Latter-day Saints are familiar with is Lehi's Dream. 

Using the elements contained in Lehi's vision, Nephi imbued a tree, a river, an iron rod, a great and spacious building, and so on, with special spiritual meanings.

If I may be so bold, I want to suggest that the story of Nephi slaying Laban was written in the same spirit, in the grand tradition of Isaiah (who Nephi admired as a star pupil), using events from his life to symbolize something much greater, and is a prelude to what follows in his record.

Because we're accustomed to reading the Book of Mormon as an historical, literal text (and nothing wrong with that) we sometimes miss the literary mechanisms they used to convey a subtler meaning.

But this was Nephi!  While he did not teach his children after the manner of the Jews and chose to speak in plainness, I daresay a bit of his heritage poked through his writings.

(That's why it would be fun to sit down with a Rabbi and read Laban's story and ask the Rabbi what he "gets" from it.  I'm sure he'd have insights that have escaped us.)

Laban, Laban, Laban

This story shows that the Lord withdraws His word from its so-called custodians when they do not honor it. 

Think of John the Baptist who "wrested" the kingdom away from the Jews.  He didn't overthrow them using military might but using the word of God (D&C 84:28).

   And they that will harden
   their hearts, to them
   is given the lesser portion
   of the word until they know
   nothing concerning
   his mysteries.

(Alma 12:11)

Here we see this process occur in real-time as Nephi removes the Brass Plates from the treasury. 

To begin, let's highlight several of the attributes of Laban that Nephi painstakingly drew for us. 

I want to emphasize that Laban is one of the most fleshed-out characters we get from Nephi's writings (I mean, Zoram is hardly a fly on the wallpaper in comparison; and Nephi doesn't even name his sisters!).

   1.  Lustful.  "When Laban saw our property . . . he did lust after it (1 Nephi 3:25).

   2.  Powerful.  "He thrust us out" (1 Nephi 3:25).

   3.  Commands other men.  "Sent his servants to slay us" (1 Nephi 3:25).

   4.  Mighty.  "Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty!" (1 Nephi 3:31).

   5.  Murderous.  "Sent his servants to slay us" (1 Nephi 3:25).

   6.  Greedy.  "Sent his servants to slay us, that he might obtain our property."

   7.  Asleep.  "He had fallen to the earth" (1 Nephi 4:7).

   8.  Drunk.  "He was drunken with wine" (1 Nephi 4:7).

   9.  Rich.  "I drew his sword . . . and the hilt thereof was of pure gold" (1 Nephi 4:9).

   10.  Martial.  "I did gird on his armor about my loinsl" (1 Nephi 4:19).

   11.  Thief.  "He also had taken away our property" (1 Nephi 4:11).

   12.  Wicked.  "The Lord slayeth the wicked" (1 Nephi 4:13).

   13.  Keeper of the Treasury.  "I went forth unto the treasury of Laban" (1 Nephi 4:20).

   14.  A leader of the people.  "He spake unto me concerning the elders of the Jews, he knowing that his master, Laban, had been out by night among them" (1 Nephi 4:22).

   15.  Steward of the Recorded Word of God (Brass Plates) (1 Nephi 4:24).

I think by now we're getting the drift.  But if it wasn't clear, Nephi appears to be hitting us over the head with a hammer, spelling out for us the ways in which Laban is a type of the Great and Abominable Church, which he will fully flesh-out in Chapters 13 and 14.

Go back and compare the list to what we know about the Great and Abominable Church.

   It checks every box.

Notice that Nephi does not battle Laban, who had "fallen to the earth."  Just like the Great and Spacious Building, which will fall and "great shall be the fall thereof."

It doesn't fall because we bombed its foundation (it has none) or because we've launched missiles at it.  The arm of flesh does not topple Babylon.

It falls because the Lord.  

   He is the living God,
   and an everlasting king:
   at his wrath the earth shall tremble,
   and the nations shall not be able
   to abide his indignation.

(Jeremiah 10:10)

I think this shows that the Lord truly does fight our battles (D&C 98:37)!  We don't "win" by being the strongest or most-skilled or well-armed, as if we were going to wrestle Bablyon to the carpet for three counts.

Our job is NOT to defeat Babylon (that's up to the Lord); our job is to call them out of Babylon, to flee it, before the buildings crumble and crush them.

We're weak and vulnerable, just like Nephi.

Imagine Nephi's adrenaline as he crept through the streets of Jerusalem, primed and ready for the worst . . .

. . . and then he stumbled upon his foe who was unconscious and unable to put up a fight.

There was no glory in it for Nephi, no sword play for him to prove his mettle.

Because the glory always was, and always will be, the Lord's.

Reframing the Story

I have several connections and comparisons I want to draw, but they are crashing into each other at the intersection because I am not sure who has the right-of-way.

So, in no particular order:

   1.  The Sword of Laban.

First, what is so special about the Sword of Laban?  What does it represent?

   Wherefore take unto you
   the whole armour of God . . . 
   and the sword of the Spirit,
   which is the word of God.

(Ephesians 9:13, 17)

I think it's fascinating that Paul mentions all of this wonderful armour that is defensive . . . except this one thing.

Shoes, shields, helmets, and breastplates are great, sure (and I guess we could shield-bash our foe in battle), but we're given only one offensive weapon in our arsenal: a sword.  The Word.  

Nephi uses this weapon (the word) to overcome his foe, the thing standing between him and Brass Plates (which contain God's word).

   Give heed unto my word,
   which is quick and powerful,
   sharper than a two-edged sword,
   to the dividing asunder
   of both joints and marrow.

(D&C 6:2)

The way Christ "slays" His foes is not to draw blood from their veins, but to turn them from the error from their ways using His "two-edged" sword.

And remember what Nephi did with the sword afterwards?  He fashioned other swords after it, just like we carry the same message as delivered by the Son.

   2.  The Brass Plates.

What does Nephi use the sword of Laban to obtain?  The Brass Plates.

So . . . Nephi used the word to obtain . . . the word?

The iron rod, remember, was the word of God.  And the rod led to the tree that symbolized the Word of God, Christ.

So . . . this is not new.  it is sort of the same.

The Brass Plates contain the covenants of the Lord.  

Perhaps John the Revelator can help us here.  He explained in Revelation 19:15:

   And out of his mouth
   proceedeth the word of God,
   and with it he will smite 
   [like a sword smiting Laban, right?]
   the nations; and he
   will rule them
   [okay, how does God rule?  Must be with an army and tanks, right?]
   with the word of his mouth.

(JST Revelation 19:15)

   3.  Zoram.

Nephi recovers two things from Laban: (1) the Brass Plates, and (2) Zoram.

Isn't it interesting how the word of God (the sword and Brass Plates) result in Zoram being liberated, who had been a slave? 

The sword freed him from captivity just as the Christ's word frees us from the precepts of men and the foolish traditions of our fathers.

But the emancipation did not occur automatically.  Zoram had to choose whether to return to Jerusalem or to accompany Nephi to the promised land (more on that in a minute).

   4.  Laban's Garments.

This part, where Nephi dons the clothing of a dead man, always made me a tad squeamish. 

But look carefully at what he says:

   I took the garments of Laban
   and put them upon
   mine own body; yea,
   even every whit; and I did
   gird on his armor
   about my loins.

(1 Nephi 4:19)

I guess that means Nephi stripped Laban naked and wore his underwear?

In this moment I see Nephi as a shining type of Christ.  Christ took upon Himself our bloody rags, clothed Himself in our shame, covered Himself in our sins "even every whit," and took upon Himself flesh (the seeds of a dead mankind) in order to bring us His word.

Nephi used the disguise to carry forth the word of God contained in the Brass Plates. 

Christ made Himself of dust so He could deliver to us His word on earth.

A Word About the Headlock

I've always been a bit troubled by Nephi putting Zoram in a head lock to prevent him from escaping.  It seemed a little "coercive" to me.  As though Zoram made his choice under duress, with a gun to his head.

   [Zoram] was about to flee
   from before me and return
   to the city of Jerusalem.

   And now I, Nephi, being a man
   large in stature, and also having
   received much strength
   of the Lord,
   therefore I did seize upon
   the servant of Laban,
   and held him,
   that he should not flee.

   And it came to pass that I spake
   with him, that if he would hearken
   unto my words, as the Lord liveth,
   and as I live, even so that if he
   would hearken unto our words,
   we would spare his life.

(1 Nephi 4:30-32)

Here's a different way to view this scene:  Pretend Nephi is a type of Christ.  We are like scattered sheep who are skittish and want to run wild.  But the Shepherd envelopes us into His embrace and doesn't let us go. 

He whispers into our ear an Oath:

   If ye would hearken unto my words,
   as I live, even so I will spare your life.

In that spirit, consider these words as if the Lord were speaking to us in the Premortal World with his arms wrapped around us as "Zoram":

   If thou wilt go down
   into the wilderness of my father
   thou shalt have a place
   with us.

   And we did take courage
   at the words the Lord spake
   and promised we would go down
   into the wilderness
   unto our father.

(1 Nephi 4:34-35)

The Lore of the Sword of Laban

I almost forgot.  I can't resist a final thought regarding the Sword of Laban.  Brigham Young shared the following about the sword, discussing Oliver and Joseph going into a cave when the ground opened up:

"The sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: 'This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ.'"

(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 19, p. 38)

Coincidence?

In my post "Bride of Babylon" I wrote:

"I suspect if the Lord needed to restore some important truths today He'd go to an unknown 14-year old farm girl on a Navajo Reservation without any credentials, training or authority."
​
​Afterward Clark Burt posted a comment, "Reminded me of Joan of Arc being burned at the stake because the church did not want a 14 year old girl receiving revelations instead of the church leaders.  Right on."

Well, I found his mention of Joan of Arc an interesting coincidence because unbeknownst to Clark I had written several pages about Joan of Arc to illustrate my point, but because that post had grown so long I decided to save it for another day.

How would Joan of Arc fare in modern-day Relief Society?

Modern Joans of Arc

If Joan were alive today, I wonder what her Bishop would do with her (the poor fellow!) ― stick her in Nursery?  Make her direct the music to the slow tempo of the organist?

Would that be a waste of her gifts?

Joan of Arc was a young woman of great faith and turned the tides of war; she altered the course of history.​  But would anyone listen to her today?  

Prior to her capture, Joan of Arc was instrumental in securing the throne for Charles VII of France.  She was known as "the Maid" because she was the Maid of Orleans who defeated the English forces in battle.

And for all of her bravery, what was her reward?  The Church, through its agent, the Bishop Pierre Cauchon, burned her at the stake in Rouen.

She was only 19 years old when she died. 

The Catholic Church burned Joan alive at the stake because she threatened their authority.

Her activism was bad for business.

Joan declared publicly that she had been sent by God.  (And she wore men's clothing!)

Do you think the Church liked hearing about her visions of St. Michael and St. Catherine, and their messages to her?

I mean, it's okay to have personal revelation and for a peasant girl to have dreams and visions (perhaps about who to marry or something), but what happens when a person dares to actually speak in the name of God?  And the message is "defeat the English"?!

   Off with her head!

Especially, and dangerously, when Joan started to attract a following.  Nothing draws the ire of leaders like people punching someone else's ticket.

Remember when Jesus entered Jerusalem with fanfare at the Triumphal Entry?  That really upset the leaders.  In Mark 11:18 we read:

   The chief priests
   and the teachers of the law . . .

These were the respected leaders and teachers who were in charge of interpreting the scriptures and telling the people how to live their religion.  They had set themselves up as "lights."  So why were they threatened by Christ's light?

   heard this and began looking for a way
   to kill him,

That seems awfully drastic, doesn't it?  Why would these men of God think it was okay to kill Jesus?  Had they deluded themselves into believing they were doing God's will?

"Surely this law breaker, Jesus, was ruining people's faith.  After all, he didn't fast!  He didn't observe the Sabbath!  He mingled with lepers!"

In their minds, they must have viewed themselves as the righteous Defenders of the Faith.

for they feared him
 
Here's the part that always confuses me.  Jesus never hurt anyone; he had refused to be king when the people wanted to crown him; he showed no interest in politics; he made no claim to the chief seats; so why were the leaders scared of Him?

because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

Ah, here we see the reason, at last.  If there's one thing leadership cannot tolerate, it is a challenge to their authority.

Jesus had to go. 

   Why? 

Because the crowds were listening to Him instead of them.

Joan of Arc was a Type of Christ?

In many ways Joan was a type of Christ.
She threatened the Church's cozy situation with the nobles and political officers of her day like Jesus had done in His.​

If you're wondering how we know so much about a young woman who lived 600 years ago in medieval Europe when most people were illiterate (less than 20% of the population could read and write), it's thanks to the Church, actually. 

During her trial the priests kept good notes, so we have the minutes, which are epic (you can actually read the transcript of her "court of love" if you want).

In 1431 the Church accused Joan of heresy and apostasy ("refusing to submit her words and deeds to the Church"). 

   Sound familiar?

To place her in historical context, Martin Luther would nail his Ninety-Five Theses 86 years later in 1517.

Joan's trial lasted several months as the Church interrogated her, suffering in her version of Liberty Jail, a prisoner of the clergy exercising unrighteous dominion over her.

Joan told the court:  "You say that you are my judge; I do not know if you are: but take good heed not to judge me ill, because you would put yourself in great peril.  And I warn you so that if God punish you for it, I shall have done my duty in telling you."

Trumped Up Charges

Well, you won't believe what the Church finally convicted Joan of. 

She was convicted of ― wait for it ― wearing men's clothes.

That's right!  I guess the Church needed to send a strong message against cross-dressing (well, in Joan's defense, how else was she going to lead an army on horseback?).

But everyone and their milkman knew the real reason Joan was killed: 

She was uncontrollable by the religious establishment. ​

We Need to Stop Burning People

I've stood in the place where Joan died.  Now the Church has made a Saint of the girl they martyred and they have built a memorial for her in Rouen.  

As a missionary serving in France, I visited many of the places Joan fought and served.  My first "area" was a suburb of Paris called Melun where Joan advanced with her forces towards Compiegne.  I visited the Cathedral of Reims where she helped to crown the Dauphin.  

As a father now, remembering her courage and faith and sacrifice, I wonder if the Church today understands what God can accomplish through His daughters any better than it did 600 years ago.

I've heard people say we need modern-day Captain Moroni's.  I would like to add:

Watch for modern Joans of Arc, too.  They are among us.  ​

Stay on I-15

For those of you who aren't from the United States and don't know what "I-15" is, I should explain the highway system here.

After WWII, President Dwight Eisenhower passed the Interstate Highways Act in 1956 which created freeways across America.  These are federally-funded highways that don't have stop signs or stop lights.  You just merge onto the Interstate and keep on driving.

Until, that is, you want to exit.

In America the primary arterial Interstates are assigned one-digit or two-digit numbers. 

For example, the I-5 stretches from Mexico to Canada along the Pacific coast.  The freeway near my home is the I-15, another north-south interstate spanning from southern California up through the Intermountain West all the way to Canada.

Question:

Pretend I am giving you directions to my home.  You are from Afghanistan and don't know how the roads work in America.  Driving your old jalopy, you call me for help.

"Just stay on I-15," I tell you.

Twelve hours later you call again.  "I think I'm lost," you say.

"Just stay on I-15," I repeat.

Will you ever reach my home?  No! 

To the contrary, you will pass me by as you shoot along the interstate listening to Sarah McLachlan on the radio (even from Afghanistan you know she's a Canadian national treasure).

In other words, if we "stay on the path," we will invariably miss the mark.

What is at the End of the Covenant Path?

Do we find a pot of gold at the end of the Covenant Path?  When do we get off this path?

President Nelson said, "My dear brothers and sisters, with all the pleadings of my heart, I urge you to get on the covenant path and STAY THERE."

   Waaaaait a minute.  

I thought paths led somewhere. 

Wouldn't "staying" on the path mean we never arrive at our destination?  We might even reach the terminus and have to turn around and drive back the other way. 

Isn't our messaging about "staying on the covenant path" just another way of saying, "Stay on the Hamster Wheel?" 

"No!" someone shouts.  "The Covenant Path describes a linear, sequential spiritual path marked at various points by specific covenants we enter into with God."

Okay.  Let's take that idea to its logical conclusion.  Let's start with our first "covenant" and keep making more and more covenants until . . . until what?

   Where does the Covenant Path lead? 

   What is at the end of the Path?

The Second Anointing?

The Covenant Path needs to be defined, doesn't it? 

It's a fun phrase, but what does it really mean?  Well, it must be referring to the covenants we make:

    a.  Baptism
    b.  Sacrament
    c.  Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood
    d.  Initiatory
    e.  Endowment
    f.  Sealing
    g.  Second Anointing
    h.  Second Comforter

Take a good look at those last two.  Have I missed any?

Is this what President Nelson means when he says to "stay on the Covenant Path?" 

Is President Nelson inviting us to seek our Second Anointing and the Second Comforter?

Okay, then!​

Covenant Path or "Strange Roads"?

​I think the best way to understand the Covenant Path is to think of it in terms of Lehi's Dream.

In Lehi's Dream, there are lots of paths!  We better beware.

   1.  Path from the head of the river of water to the Tree of Life (1 Nephi 8:13-15) (this is the path that Nephi and Sariah take).

   2.  Path along the bank of the river leading to the Tree of Life that has an iron rod along it (1 Nephi 8:19-20).

   3.  Multiple paths that feed into Path No. 2 (1 Nephi 8:21).

   4.  "Forbidden" paths taken by those who have partaken of the Tree but were ashamed (1 Nephi 8:28)

   5.  Path taken by the multitude leading directly to the Great and Spacious Building, Do Not Pass Go, do not collect any Fruit (1 Nephi 8:31).

   6.  Paths that splinter off of Path No. 5 into "strange roads" (1 Nephi 8:32).

I think we can all agree that there are multiple paths and routes that (1) lead toward and (2) (here's the scary part) away from the Tree.

But there is only one "way." 

That would be Jesus Christ.  Isn't if funny how we can't spin a possum by its tail without bumping against the Covenant Path these days, when Lehi's Dream zeroes in on the fact that the straight and narrow way, the Iron Rod and the tree/fruit are all . . . Christ?

   Straight and narrow way (who is Christ)

   Iron Rod = Word of God (who is Christ)

   Tree of Life and its Fruit = Love of God (who is Christ)

The whole Dream appears to show us that Christ is the way AND the car AND the destination.

Look!  The only path that matters is the one we walk with, and beside, and in, Christ:

   And I will be your light
   in the wilderness;
   and I will prepare the way
   before you [and] . . . ye shall be led
   [where to?!]
   towards the promised land;
   [who will lead us there?!]
   and ye shall know that it is by ME
   that ye are led.

(1 Nephi 17:13)

I don't know why we call it the Covenant Path if it is Christ's Path.

Best Question Ever

In John 14 we read about Thomas asking Jesus one of the best questions ever.

   Thomas saith unto him,
   Lord, we know not
   whither thou goest;
   and how can we know the way?

   Jesus saith unto him,
   I am the way,
   the truth,
   and the life:
   no man cometh
   unto the Father,
   but by me.

(John 14:5-6)

Let me be blunt.  The danger of preaching the "Covenant Path" is it has the effect of making us comfortable with our "covenants" (like we've checked the boxes necessary for us to be saved) instead of centering salvation in Christ Himself.

"I object!" someone might argue.  "The Covenant Path is all about coming unto Christ.  It is effectively the same thing."

   Is it, though?

A covenant relationship is between a Father and His child; so why do we make the Church the center focus? 

Yes, the Church is in the business of getting us to make covenants, but isn't it interesting how the Church inserts itself into being the broker and mediator of those covenants?

   Many will say to me
   in that day, Lord, Lord,
   have we not [been endowed
   in thy temple?]
   and in thy name have [we not
   been sealed into the new
   and everlasting covenant?]
   and in thy name [made]
   many wonderful [covenants]?

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

(Matthew 7:22-23)

So why are we obsessed with outward ordinances and institutional covenants, when the terms of exaltation are crystal clear:

   Not every one that saith unto me,
   Lord, Lord, shall enter into
   the kingdom of heaven;
   but he that doeth the will
   of my Father which is in heaven.

(Matt. 7:21)

. . . just sayin' . . .

The Covenant Path ends.  We exit the Interstate and "enter into the rest of the Lord."

UPDATE TO POST // OCTOBER 19, 2022 4:26 P.M.

After I had posted this, Clark Burt commented and reminded me of Nephi's teaching on "the way."  I want to include it here because my post was incomplete without accounting for Nephi's words.

CLARK'S COMMENT:

Like you this idea of the covenant path has always bothered me, and I ask the same questions. And it bothers me because it is becoming just another slogan, which will be forgotten after President Nelson dies no matter how many general authorities repeat it in their talks.

As you said in another post and reinforced here, this is more religion than faith in Christ.

The I-15 analogy is terrific and comparing that to the Tree of Life and all the paths described therein shows how shallow the slogan is. Do we even make a covenant when baptized? I don't remember making one. I did, however, enter into His new and everlasting Covenant.

Nephi describes how we enter into the way and how we stay in the way--because of and by feasting upon His words.

MY REPLY:
Clark, I am glad you mentioned Nephi's words because his magnum opus on "the way" completely escaped my mind as I wrote this. Thank you!

2 Nephi 31:19-21:

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow PATH, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Interesting: no mention of covenants yet, but his focus is on "the word of Christ" and "faith" and relying solely on Him.

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Interesting: still no mention of covenants per se, but he repeats two themes which I hadn't noticed before: (1) the word of Christ and (2) instead of "unshaken" faith we have "steadfastness" [in Christ]. In addition he paves the path with love like asphalt: it is to be shown to "all men."

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the WAY [so here he changes PATH to WAY]; and there is none other WAY nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the DOCTRINE [okay, now the Path - Way has become Doctrine] of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

This gives me a whole new perspective!

Repossessed Religion

Have you ever had your car repossessed by the bank? 

At work the other day, as I was sipping my morning Mountain Dew at my desk (Diet, since I am so health-conscious), chewing the pebble ice in peace, the security guard called me.  "Tim, there's a repo guy in the parking lot who's hooking up one of our employee's vehicles to a tow truck.  Should I let the employee know?"

In my mind I pictured the poor employee who had failed to make his car payments running toward the parking lot to confront the Repo Man.  "Stop!  You can't do this!  It's my car!"

But whose car is it really?  The employee would be angry but powerless, realizing the thing he thought was his had never truly belonged to him.

"Well, sure," I said to the security guard.  "You're welcome to tell him, but there's nothing he can do about it."

Afterward my boss asked me what was going on.  "A car is being repossessed outside," I said.

"Oh?" he said.  "How will you get home?"​

Own Your Religion

​Several years ago Greg Prince gave a talk at a conference called "Own Your Religion."  I really liked the message of that talk.

Brother Prince shared an anecdote about working on the PBS documentary The Mormons.  The show's producer said to him, "I have interviewed hundreds of Mormons for this documentary.  You have a good religion, but you need to own it.  Most of its members are borrowing it."

How does one "borrow" their religion?  What is the difference between possession and ownership?  Between ownership and stewardship?
​
In the talk, Brother Prince gives a raw recounting of ways we can better "own" our religion.  "When you are able to own [your religion] and place it in its context, you realize that there is tremendous strength beneath its surface, in spite of all the flaws."

I think this is a healthy perspective because it acknowledges there are always good and bad, wheat and tares, inspiration and error, in every religion (including Mormonism).

For example, take the racism of past prophets and apostles (see this interesting interview about President Harold B. Lee).  I understand people are products of their time.  I think we should take a charitable view of past generations.  After all, who knows how we will fare in the court of public opinion in future generations? 

However, I do object (!) to people ascribing to God their prejudices.

Prince said, "Owning the priesthood and temple ban means acknowledging how easy it is (even for servants of God) to blindly uphold popular prejudices.  It means taking rigorous stock of how we might be upholding similar prejudices in our own day."

I don't think any of us consider ourselves bigoted.  Maybe it's because we use religion and the scriptures to justify our prejudices (as if we are defenders of the faith and were pleasing God by acting like the Westboro Baptist Church).

And yet, in my Elders Quorum, I hear Westboro's messaging peeking through the comments, but in more refined language; prejudice dressed in finery rather than in coarse cloth ― you know, same point but with fewer slurs.

To quote Brother Prince:

"Continuing revelation, which is bedrock to Mormonism, means progress—it means new scripture can supersede old scripture.

"Jesus said that the Law was fulfilled in him, and that he thus brought about a new worldview.  And yet, how many religionists, including those of our own tribe, cherry-pick Old Testament passages, in particular, to justify bigotry, injustice, and cruelty today?

"I have yet to encounter a single significant doctrine within Mormonism that has not undergone change since the earliest days of the Restoration.

"It is, literally, an article of our faith that we don’t have it all, and that we believe there is much yet for God to reveal.

"Rather than denying or fighting doctrinal evolution, we should welcome it—and pray for more."

Borrowed Religion

One of the biggest ways we "borrow" our religion, I think, is treating the Church as though it belonged to someone else. 

Watching the way General Authorities are treated like spiritual celebrities, we might begin to think they're important (they may even start thinking it themselves). 

But we don't believe the United States belongs to Congress, do we?

Whatever happened to "We the People?"

When we borrow our religion, it emasculates our faith.  We focus more on obedience to leaders than faith in God.

   Own our religion = faith

   Borrow our religion = obedience

Are we afraid of leaders "repossessing" our membership?  What happens if we don't stay on the covenant path and pay our dues?

Repossession takes many forms, but ultimately it means being excommunicated.

But if we own our religion, who can take it away?  Because it is ours, not theirs.

Can anyone "take away" what God has given? 

God alone is the Repo Man, the one from whom all authority flows.

Anyone else who comes and puts chains on our vehicle, trying to tow it, is a thief.

   My sheep hear my voice,
   and I know them,
   and they follow me:
   and they shall never perish,
   neither shall any man
   pluck them out of my hand.

(John 10:27-28)

(Me looking dapper in my School Picture)

Can Our Faith Outgrow Our Religious Traditions?

When I was in Elementary School, living in northern California in the 1980s, I wore the same purple shirt to school Picture Day three years in a row (this was during the Punky Brewster craze so purple was "in").

When my wife sorted my old childhood photos, she couldn't believe it.  She asked, "Why did you wear the same shirt every year?  Were you poor?"

No, we weren't poor.  I wore that shirt because I liked it.  Maybe I thought it looked good on me.  I probably would have kept wearing the shirt for a fourth year except I experienced a growth spurt. 

I outgrew my favorite shirt.

Now in middle-age, many of us are outgrowing our favorite religions.  Our faith continues to grow and deepen in ways that won't fit in our old garments.

It's become increasingly apparent to others who know me that I have gained spiritual weight and my clothes aren't fitting; feasting on the words of Christ has given me something of a beer belly, stretching my cotton T-shirt to the edge of decency.

(I won't even mention my booty shorts.)

Can someone outgrow the Church?

The Lord, interestingly, doesn't stretch or patch our old garments because they would invariably rip and burst apart at the seams. 

   No man putteth a piece of new cloth
   into an old garment,
   for that which is put in
   to fill it up taketh from the garment,
   and the rent is made worse.

(Matt. 9:16)

Jesus would know; after all, his garment was ONE piece.  "Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout" (John 19:23).

Christ's coat was a symbol of His gospel: it is one.  It is whole.  It is indivisible.

It is NOT a patchwork of good news mixed with the commandments of men. 

Coarse Cloth?

​Nobody wants to envision God wearing coarse, scratchy cloth.  Whoever heard of a king wearing burlap?

We prefer instead to picture God dressed in soft silks and fine-twined linen ― which is, ironically, the very apparel those in the Great and Abominable Church wear (and reveals, perhaps, something about ourselves).

   And John was clothed
   with camel’s hair
   and with a girdle of a skin
   about his loins.

(Mark 1:6)

What kind of prophet dresses like that?  As we all know, the clothing of priests should be elaborate, beautiful, and expensive. 

   Like religion.  Lots of ephods to sparkle in God's lime light.

That's why, when we see Christ dressed so simply, we must do something!  Surely no one will believe in such a shabbily-dressed God.  Let's make His gospel more attractive: adding here and ironing there.

The gospel is too plain for Babylon (just "love God and our neighbor") so we go ahead and declare more or less than what Christ has given as the Good News, and establish it for doctrine (3 Ne. 11:40).

And so, like the soldiers who forced upon Christ a scarlet robe to wear (Matt. 27:31), we search for something more fitting for a king (not to make Him more comfortable, mind you, but to make ourselves more comfortable; like when we avoid sitting next to an unwashed person on the bus).  

By the way, this wasn't the first time Christ was forced to wear a kingly robe:

   Herod with his men of war
   set him at nought,
   and mocked him,
   and arrayed him
   in a gorgeous robe,
   and sent him again to Pilate.

(Luke 23:11)

Why is everyone trying to cover Christ up?!

    Why are we?

Well, do we make a mockery of Christ when we try to dress up His gospel with our precepts and rules?

Is it any wonder our religion is no better at fitting Christ into its preconceived mold than the Jewish faith was in their expectations of the Messiah?

Stature of Christ

What does it mean to grow into the "stature of Christ?"  And will it require upsizing our clothes?

What do we do when we discover the cloth cut by the Church does not reach Christ's full measure?  What happens when our old Church uniform becomes too constricting for our faith in a living God?

   Till we all come in the unity of the faith,
   and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
   unto a perfect man, unto the measure
   of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
   That we henceforth be no more children.

(Ephesians 4:13-14)

Don't misunderstand: I loved that purple shirt as a child!  That's why I wore it for as long as I could. 

But if I still had that shirt and tried to put it on today, it would not fit.

We don't dress our adult children in toddler clothing, treating them like we did when their diet consisted of PB&J sandwiches and milk.

As our children grow ― as their bones extend and their minds expand, and when they start liking a rare ribeye steak ― we know it's time to take them shopping for a new wardrobe.

The Devil's Diet

One of the solutions to our problem would be to lose weight, of course.  That way we could continue to fit into our old college jerseys.

This is what leaders are trying to do, I think, when they act like our mother telling us to lay off the butter.

The devil encourages this approach: he wants our spirits to stay slim and trim through the malnourishment of self-righteousness, thinking we're healthy and good-looking when our body is riddled with cancers. 

One of the ways the devil tries to stunt our growth is to make us believe we must stay the same ― the same size, keeping things the same way they've always been, thinking that if we don't fit into our jeans anymore the problem must be us and not the clothes' fault ― in order to get us to continue clinging to our old, familiar comfortable garments.

Carnal security is a cozy shawl our grandmother crocheted, keeping us warm on snowy nights, as crowds huddle outside our door perishing from the cold.

So how does the devil help us keep our figure? 

   By starving us.

Christ, on the the other hand, is like an Italian grandmother who keeps filling our plate with cheesy meatballs.

   Come unto the Holy One of Israel,
   and feast upon that which
   perisheth not,
   neither can be corrupted,
   and let your soul delight in fatness.

(2 Nephi 9:51)

So we see the problem is not our weight, it is what we're eating.

Notice that Satan lets all of the skinny runway models "feast" too.  He's not stingy.  They can eat all day because it is not the amount of food but the nutritiousness of it that matters. 

What has our religious experience proven, if not the fact that all this snacking is never able to bring us "to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7)?

So what's the difference between feasting on the words of Christ and feasting on Satan's smorgasbord of appetizers and entrees?

Jacob tells us in that verse: the Lord's food is non-perishable. 

Whereas the devil's food cannot satisfy.

   Thou shalt eat,
   but not be satisfied.

(Micah 6:14)

Famine in the Land

So we've summed up our predicament.  This awful situation was described by Amos, and his warning applies to us in the Church today:

   I will send a famine in the land,
   not a famine of bread,
   nor a thirst for water,
   but of hearing the words of the Lord:
   And they shall wander from sea to sea,
   and from the north even to the east,
   they shall run to and fro
   to seek the word of the Lord,
   and shall not find it.

(Amos 8:11-12)

As evidence of this famine we have Elder Renlund's recent address, "A Framework for Personal Revelation."

(I hope someday to blog about this remarkable talk.  Spoiler: the hounds of hell have caught the scent of it.) 

The selling point of the Restoration used to be that God spoke again to man, even to everyman, and because the heavens were opened, we no longer had to receive His grace through a Pope.

But now the Church teaches that God really only wants to talk to the President of the Church on anything of substance, not to everyman.

So in the end, the only good God can do for the everyman is to help him find his lost car keys.

Elder Renlund's talk, if followed, will ensure we remain skeletal in our faith.  

Whereas, if we follow Christ's word, which taught us to "ask, seek, knock" we shall be the children of our Father in heaven.

And the nice thing about the gospel?  While it is one-size-fits-all, each outfit is utterly unique and individually tailored.

The outfit?  Well, that's us putting on Christ.

We will feast on His word.  We will welcome true messengers from our Father.  We will grow up.

And yes, we will get new garments.

   And awake, and arise from the dust,
   O Jerusalem; yea, and put on
   thy beautiful garments,
   O daughter of Zion.

(Moroni 10:31)

God's Army

After I returned from my LDS mission I was acclimating to being back home in Utah as a civilian when the movie "God's Army" came out.

The film was directed by Richard Dutcher who would go on to make a sequel and the film "Brigham City."

Those of you who were around back then probably remember God's Army.  It created a bit of controversy in Utah.  Going to see the movie in the theater felt a little bit exciting, a little bit forbidden, as if we were 15 year olds sneaking into a Rated-R movie without an adult.

It was 2000 and there was no "Mormon cinema" yet.  Dutcher pioneered a whole new genre by showing on the Big Screen what happens in mission fields around the world with his unflinching camera lens.

I think the most shocking moment of the movie for me was the scene depicting a priesthood blessing.

Some people were put off by the realism.  Others, like me, walked out of the theater shrugging, "Yup, that captured a lot of my mission experience."

But what did the Church think about the portrayal of its missionaries in God's Army?

"You are the Church!"

Recently I was listening to an interview with Richard Dutcher.  ​

He said that after many screenings of God's Army, he would conduct a Q&A with the audience.  

One of the common questions he was asked was, "What does the Church think about your movie?"

This question confused him, until he found the perfect response:

"I don't know.  YOU are the Church [sweeping his arms towards the audience].  What do YOU think?"

At one of those screenings, a wife of a member of the Twelve Apostles attended.  When he said that line, she began clapping loudly and the audience joined her.

This story illustrates, I think, a serious problem.  It shows the way we view the Church as something "other" or "outside" of ourselves.

Over time we have begun treating The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as if it were run by, and belonged to, the leaders.  The members are just along for the ride.  In the backseat.  Of a patrol vehicle.  Handcuffed.  
​
This is why when leaders tell us to "stay in the boat," I wonder which boat they mean?  The dinghy we're rowing by hand, bailing water, as fellow-servants of Jesus Christ, on the spiritual sea of Galilee? 

Or in the glitzy motorized speedboat zipping around and flaunting its Catholic-size wealth in real estate, temples, and stock holdings as if it were the spiritual heir of the Wolf of Wall Street?

If anyone fell asleep during that analogy, I'll put it this way: there are, in fact, TWO churches within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If "two churches" rings a bell, it is because we encounter this phrase on the lips of an angel who is teaching Nephi.

For a moment, let's see what happens if we apply these words to the Church itself; let's pretend that this verse is describing the body of believers who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, divided between the humble "few" followers of Christ and the rest of us:

   Behold there are save two churches only;
   the one is the church of the Lamb of God,
   and the other is the church of the devil;
   wherefore, whoso belongeth not
   to the church of the Lamb of God
   belongeth to that great church,
   which is the mother of abominations.

(1 Nephi 14:10)

But don't worry.  Joseph Smith gave us the key to solving this problem!

The Greatest Revelation We've Never Heard Of

I have gone on record several times in the past describing the reasons why I believe the General Handbook is an example of a modern day "abomination," every bit as damaging to the Church as Solomon allowing his wives to worship foreign Gods was to ancient Israel. 

Is the General Handbook Really Pseudepigrapha?

Something I have not talked about before is the fact the Church already has a divinely-revealed Constitution (no, NOT the United States Constitution).

The reason we don't need a Church Handbook is because the Lord has already established a Constitution for his people. 

A Constituiton is the "highest" authority of law in the land; all other statutes, regulations and rules are subject and subordinate to it, and when there's a conflict, the Constitution is supreme.

The Handbook is trampling the Lord's revealed Constitution.

   Yea, even the very God of Israel
   do men trample under their feet;
   I say, trample under their feet
   but I would speak in other words--
   they set him at naught,
   and hearken not
   to the voice of his counsels.

(1 Nephi 19:7)

By way of introduction, this little-known revelation was given to Joseph Smith on April 25, 1844 (just a couple months before his death).  It came "thus saith the Lord."  There is no question it was authoritative because Sidney Rigdon formally moved for a vote to adopt and sustain this revelation.  It passed unanimously.

This revelation was as earth-shattering as Joseph's King Follett discourse, in my opinion.  It radically altered our orientation towards God and to each other in this body politick.

Why isn't this revelation in our scriptures?  It deserves a place in the Doctrine and Covenants.  It is one of the greatest and most important words of God ever revealed through Joseph Smith.

In a way, it was a fitting bookend to his prophetic career, which began with the heavens opening and the absurdity of God speaking to a 14-year-old nobody.  

(As an aside, when the Church teaches the Constitution shall "hang by a thread," I think it has forgotten about this other, greater, Constitution).

Whereas the US Constitution was inspired by the Lord for a fractious, unruly people ("for all men"), this new revealed Constitution in 1844 was reserved for those who would serve Jesus Christ. 

A Failed Attempt to Draft a Constitution

In 1844, one of the primary projects of the Council of Fifty was to draft a new Constitution for the Kingdom of God.  

A committee was formed and the project began in earnest.  But . . . it went nowhere.  It stalled out.  It was too big, too controversial, too enormous an assignment for them.

It was almost like the Lord was showing the Council their limitations.  I mean, as great as these frontiersmen were, I am not sure they were up to the task.  Nauvoo was not going to replicate the miracle of Philadelphia. 

It was humbling, I think, for them to realize how weak and foolish they were.

Then Joseph stood up and set the record straight, telling them to abandon their attempt to draft a Constitution.  All bets were off.

Instead, Joseph revealed the Lord's Constitution direct from the mouth of God:

Minutes of Council of 50, April 25, 1844

"The chairman [Joseph Smith] then made some further remarks and advised that we let the constitution alone. He would tell us the whole matter about the constitution as follows--

"Verily thus saith the Lord, ye are my constitution, and I am your God, and ye are my spokesmen. From henceforth do as I shall command you.  Saith the Lord.

"Er Rigdon motioned that the constitution be received and the vote was unanimous, whereupon the council adjourned."​

​at half past three he sat in a worn chair across from me in the waiting room and pretended interest in last year’s magazine reporting the price of a barrel of oil shipped from the Middle East, crossing the Atlantic, placing it somewhere opposite of Eden.

​i was no good with directions. there was an old-fashioned map drawn on the wall above him: East would be to the right of the Middle West, but hardly a cowboy could be found. barrels of consecrated oil had dripped down my scalp. the price of something last year was meaningless.
 
he cradled the magazine but was distracted, perhaps unsure of the coordinates his life had struck. our glances alternated as the two hands of a clock. maybe if our eyes intersected, longitude and latitude, i would know where this was, in what time i sat, whose timeline i shared beyond my own. my gold tooth throbbed.   
 
at four we waited alone except for the quiet chirping of a grandfather clock hanging over my head. the watchful eye of a sea maiden adorning the map heaved her chest with exposed nipples the color of wine you buy to impress a girl, like arrow heads, pointing somewhere South if you follow.

​she said, ‘drill for petroleum the sea sands wait drill drill where the salt water hides oil beneath its skirt drill drill.’ i ignored the siren, lost in thought, wondering if he was a faster draw than me. nowadays who could tell but i always looked for a holster.   
 
at half past four i withdrew a pocket watch from my waistcoat and checked the time. i listened to the lead seconds. two times did not sync which i found irritating, out of step. i could not tell which was correct without a third. but what a difference a half a second made. if repeated enough those half seconds could carry eternity. longitude and latitude were inadequate dimensions.   
 
the siren was silent now which was more unsettling than her voice. at five he reached into his pant pocket and I reached toward mine but it was only a piece of dried beef in his hand. i got a good look at his hand, which spoke of him as a man, a soul stretched along the fingers whose nail tips reflected a youth unturned and knuckles white as an uncooked egg, translucent.

​shouldn’t they be locking up now it’s half past five? his long hair was not-young but i saw none of the premature gray around his temples. the oiled hair was slicked back into a ponytail. i traced the space between the rows the teeth of his comb had left in its wake.   

the magazine had no more words for him and lay limp in his lap. between us was empty space keeping us apart as if filled with flying buckshot. the map to the North depicted a flat earth rolled out like a scroll, a world that was not the world, the world between us unspoken, as strangers reckon. but we were not strangers. i searched for words to cross the gulf, this Southern divide that parted meaning, life shorn of sound, but my voice was lost. even if i could speak i don’t know if he would hear. don’t take hearing for granted.
 
at six i left the waiting room and went where all dead go.

Zion in the Lion's Den

​My first foray into "the deep end" as a bonafide member of the fan club for Zion came as an undergraduate student at BYU reading Hugh Nibley's masterpiece Approaching Zion.

My roommates and I were like French Revolutionaries in our zeal for Zion.  But it's been a long time since those hard-rocked, consecration-fueled, halcyon days at University, and my views about Zion have matured the way fruit left on the counter continues to ripen.  
  
   Leave it too long and it will spoil.  

Zion, like the Second Coming and so many other parts of our religion, has a way of turning over time, going from a real and vibrant part of our faith to something theoretical and tangental to it. 

I suppose Zion has been sitting on our spiritual countertop for so long it's like a banana getting gray spots on its peel.

   No one wants to eat it anymore.

For centuries we've dreamed about Zion; but after so long looking forward to it, speaking about it ad nauseum without any meaningful movement towards it . . . one begins to wonder what all the fuss was about in the first place.

A New Refreshing Perspective on Zion

We generally think of Zion as a gathering:

   a gathering of people (physically)
   who are pure in heart (spiritually)

I want to suggest another way to view Zion: Zion as a gathering of God's promises.  Instead of focusing on a place or a people, I want us to focus on the promises made to Zion.

What does it mean if Zion is a gathering of God’s promises?

The Restoration, after all, began with God fulfilling a promise He made to the Nephites and Lamanites.  God promised to preserve their record and restore them in the latter-days to a knowledge of the gospel (see, D&C Section 3 and Section 10).

   And for this very purpose
   are these plates preserved,
   which contain these records--
   that the promises of the Lord
   might be fulfilled,
   which he made to his people.

(D&C 3:19)

​When I was young and ill-informed (some call me so still) I believed Zion would arise from the crème de la crème of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; that our best and brightest would be "called up" to gather to the New Jersusalem in consequence of their faithfulness, and if I was good enough, and smart enough, and if the Prophet liked me, I might be numbered among the lucky few ― as if going to Zion was like getting accepted into Harvard.

So let's briefly walk-back the notion that Zion is stuffed with holy saints who are dwelling in Shangri-La or in some mystical place we're going to settle sometime in the future, as if Zion were merely waiting for the Church to get its act together and for us to shape up and act like saints should.

Because, guess what?  I think we have demonstrated over the past 200 years (from Joseph Smith) or 2000 years (if you count from Christ) that it's not going to happen.

   Not in the way we think, at least.

A New Definition of Zion

What if we viewed Zion as a stitching together of all the floating threads the Lord has been stretching out over millennia during His dealings with humanity, sprinkling covenants here and promises there? 

Imagine Zion as Him at last gathering all of those loose ends together. 

I think it will help our imagination if we stop thinking concretely about Zion being a particular place (Jackson County) or being established at a specific time (in the future) or from a single people (members of the Church).

Instead, pretend Zion were here already.  What if we already have "one fold with one Shepherd?"

Nephi reminded us:

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

(1 Nephi 22:25)

Doesn't this verse describe Zion?  Then see if you can name one thing in that verse that hasn't happened already.

   1.  Has Christ gathered us into His arms, from whatever place of sin and darkness we were stumbling through?

   2.  Has Christ numbered us as His children?

   3.  Do we know Him?

   4.  Can we be part of the "one fold" that is His eternal, unchanging Church (which the scriptures describe as the Church of the Lamb)?

   5.  Can we choose, today, to make Christ our one, and only, Shepherd?

   6.  Have we been fed by Christ's word and grace and love?

   7.  Isn't it true we have already found "pasture" (i.e. "rest") in Christ?

If you answered "Yes" to those questions, then I think you will agree that we have, in fact, entered Zion already (or, as the New Testament puts it, into the invisible Kingdom of God that doesn't come with observation). 

​Zion is already here for those who have eyes to see it.

So before we start digging sewer trenches in Independence Missouri for our cottages near a garden of cucumbers, perhaps we should step back and ask what God is up to. 

What does God intend to accomplish in his "strange work?"

During the past 25 years I've come a long way from that pimpled, fool-hardy undergrad at BYU who stayed up late researching the scriptures. 

But one thing hasn't changed: I still have a bright hope for Zion that has not dimmed over all the years. 

Recently I have struggled to put into words my feelings and my hope for Zion.  

I finally found a way by thinking about the prophet Daniel who was an outcast in captivity, serving in Babylon, and who longed to return to the Holy City after Israel's long dispersion.

After many fits and starts and stops, here it is:

Zion in the Lion's Den

The Lord said to Jeremiah:
     
     If they say unto thee,
     Whither shall we go?
     then thou shalt tell them:
    
     Thus saith the Lord,
          Such as are for death,
     to death;
          and such as are for the sword,
     to the sword;
         and such as are for the famine,
     to the famine;
         and such as are for the captivity,
     to the captivity.
                            
                          ― Jeremiah 15:2

    >>>    70 Years Later    <<<
              Daniel Prayed

((    Lord                                    ))
ss::                                              ::ss
((   Giver of love’s covenant  ))
 
                          See
                       Our sin
           Sprouted and full-grown
        Wrench us from wrongness
Put fire to the seedling of this harvest
              That rebellion halt
                In grace's pinion
           
     Amen.
 
We listened not to them
Who balanced your word
On hematite tongues
In whose belly churned
The chastisement of our stretched-out necks
Wo, wo, unto us
For you have seen
Our abominations!
 
     Amen.
 
This day we are         covered with shame
A people          naked       of your holiness
Our crown a     scab       of unfaithfulness
Israel’s hope                  both near and far
Scattered       as seafoam upon the rocks
We and  our  prophets and       ancestors
Lie          bruised beside                    Sheol
​Because       we sinned
                                                 against you
 
Who shall declare
   The Lord’s mercy?
      Even those who disobeyed
        And kept not your laws
      Shall follow your Condescension
   And wash the stain of judgment
From their hearts in the Fuller’s soap
 
                       Now
                       Lord
                       our
          God bring us forward
           Turn not away those
                      who
                      would
                      serve
                      upon
                      your
                      holy
                      hill
 
Lord, look with favor
On your desolate sanctuary
A people sorrowing for your namesake
We request this not because we are righteous
     But because of your great mercy
 
     Lord, listen
     Lord, forgive
     Lord, hear and act
     My God, do not delay
 
Amen.

――――​

[This modern retelling was inspired by Daniel's intercessory prayer for Israel recorded in Daniel Chapter 9.]