​What We Know: Anti-Christ Edition

When I was younger, I used to think of the Anti-Christ as some kind of boogeyman: scary and evil ― like Freddy Krueger but with better make-up and nails.

Who was this monster who would make war with the saints?  Who would be his companions, the beast and false prophet, serving as his counselors?

I want to sketch out a portrait of the Anti-Christ so we can put his face on a spiritual Most-Wanted poster.

Anti-Signs

Before we begin, I should ask, is this subject important?  Or is it errata to our faith in Christ?  How does knowledge of the Anti-Christ fit into the gospel?  Should we even care?

   He that feareth me
   shall be looking forth
   for the great day
   of the Lord to come,
   even for the signs
   of the coming
   of the Son of Man.

   And they shall see signs
   and wonders,
   for they shall be shown forth
   in the heavens above,
   and in the earth beneath.

(D&C 45:39-40)

​Well, just as Christ gave us signs of His coming, so too we find signs to watch for ("anti-signs") of the Anti-Christ's coming.

The danger, of course, is confusing the two.

How better to deceive the very elect, than to trick them into thinking the Anti-Christ comes in, and works by, Christ's power?

How marvelously diabolical of Satan, to co-opt the signs that Christ foretold!

He is an evil genius.

You see, the apostle Paul warned us that the Anti-Christ will be surrounded by an entourage of miracles, too:

   Even him [the Anti-Christ],
   whose coming is after
   the working of Satan
   with all power and signs
   and lying wonders.

(2 Thess. 2:9)

"All power?"  Did you notice that signs and wonders accompany both Christ and his rival?  What makes the Anti-Christ's wonders different ("lying")?

The Anti-Christ will present himself under the sign of the serpent and the sign of the dove ― or at least those resembling such, to the unwary.

How will we tell them apart?

Titles of the Anti-Christ

To get a flavor of this man we call  Anti-Christ, let's look at some of his titles.

​   - Man (sorry ladies)
   - Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2:3)
   - Son of Perdition (2 Thess. 2:3)
   - God (2 Thess. 2:4)
   - Beast (Rev. 13:2)

The Anti-Christ refers to several different things, both literal and metaphorical, but generally-speaking, we're talking about:

   (1)  An actual person; a leader who is given "great authority" in times of crisis (Rev. 13:2); and

   (2)  An evil spirit (the "spirit of antichrist"), which is "Wicked" (capital W) (2 Thess. 2:8), covering the earth and deceiving those upon it.  In 1 John 4:3 we're told this spirit has already gone out into the world to prepare for Satan's emissary, just as the Lord's Spirit is the "spirit of freedom" (Alma 61:15) that precedes the Millennium (D&C 101:77-80); and

   (3)  A political system of nations that combines to rule over all peoples except those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book (Rev. 13:8).  This government will be animated by the fulness of antichrist, led by a man who personifies it.

Watch for Parallelism

As you can see, these categories are not exclusive; often "Anti-Christ" describes a combination of all three.

Just like Christ.

   (1)  Christ refers to an actual Person who is flesh and bone; or

   (2)  Christ can refer to His Spirit, which is the light of truth that quickens all people; or

   (3)  Christ can refer to His Kingdom, the embodiment we call "the Body of Christ" (or Church).

Here's the point: there's an uncanny parallelism between the two.

As there must needs be opposition in all things ― and Christ was the Avatar of the Father on earth ― so will the Anti-Christ serve as the avatar of Satan, whom the world will worship as their savior.

If that last sentence didn't send tingles down your spine, you have nerves of steel!

"Will the Anti-Christ Please Stand Up"

Before I get ahead of myself, let's look at some of the scriptures that describe this personage:

   Let no man deceive you

Right out of the gate, Paul informs us he is preaching about the Anti-Christ so we'll avoid being deceived (although he doesn't use the name, which is reserved for the letters of John).

Notice how Paul quotes almost verbatim from the Lord Himself:  "Take heed, that no man deceive you, for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many" (Matt 24:4-5).

   by any means

The apostle's intent is for us to NOT be deceived by anyone, nor by any means.

What "means" are the most effective against Christians?  Against members of the Church?

How would the devil be able to get us to worship the Anti-Christ? Wouldn't we be smarter than that?

What if we thought we were doing God's will by following and obeying the Anti-Christ?  For example, what if the Prophet told us to do something that went against our consciences, but we rationalized it away because the counsel came from God's mouthpiece?

   for that day shall not come,
   except there come
   a falling away first

In the LDS tradition, we cite this verse as evidence of the Great Apostasy.  I want to suggest that the "falling away" is not that.  Different translations render it as:

   "It will not come until the rebellion occurs" (Berean Standard Bible)

   "That day will not come until the rebellion occurs" (NIV)

   "For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first" (ESV)

   "For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God" (New Living Translation)

Get the idea?  Is this describing the Dark Ages, or something else?  What would constitute out-right rebellion?

   and that man of sin
   be revealed,
   the son of perdition

A son of perdition is rarified company, at least in the circles the devil travels in.  You've got Cain.  Judas.  The Anti-Christ.  What do they all have in common?  What constitutes a person becoming "perdition"?

Disturbingly, this tells us that the Anti-Christ will have been inducted into the mysteries of God; he'll be an insider ― because a person doesn't become a son of perdition until after they have partaken of God's power and then denied His truth and defied Him (D&C 76:31).

Something else we learn from this passage is that the Anti-Christ will be undercover for most of his career ― at least until he is "revealed."  But how is he revealed?  Paul gives us some clues in the following verse:

   Who opposeth and exalteth
   himself above all
   that is called God,
   or that is worshipped;
   so that he as God
   sitteth in the temple of God,
   shewing himself that he is God.

(2 Thess. 2:2-3)

Well, isn't it interesting that the Anti-Christ will feel at home . . . where?  "In the temple of God."  He will preside in the temple as if he were God.

Oh oh.

"There will be no safer place . . . than inside that temple."

 Part 1: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 2: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 3: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 4: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 5: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 6: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 7: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs

​Welcome to Auditing 101

​I find Scientology fascinating, from an anthropological point of view.  The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, wrote a therapy book in 1950 called Dianetics.  But two years later he lost the rights to the book, so he recast his ideas into a religion he named Scientology.  Yes, a new American religion founded upon a book ― the rest is history.

The similarities and differences between Scientology and the LDS Church are too numerous to list here, but to me the three most interesting aspects of Scientology are (1) their interpersonal politics / power dynamics, (2) their theology, and (3) their practice of Fair Game.

Look, having been raised in the LDS Church on a healthy diet of teachings about Kolob and Adam being transplanted here from another world (Brigham Young, JD 3:319), I am in no position to judge another religion's space opera.

But from what I understand, Scientologists believe that 75 million years ago ― (the LDS Church has them beat, per Bruce R. McConkie, who said that God "has presided in our universe for almost 2.5 billion years") ― there was a Galactic Confederacy ruled by a person called Xenu, whose solution to galactic overpopulation was to send tons of citizens to earth and then nuke them.

The souls of the dead who had been consigned to earth (they're called thetans) were traumatized by Xenu's genocide, and humans today (the bodies that house the thetans) need to undergo "auditing" to clear themselves of the trauma.

This is accomplished through a process of holding metal rods hooked up to a device that measures a person's electrical resistance while another person (the auditor) determines what bad energy (engrams) needs to be cleared.

Scientologists consider auditing a sacred ritual (and an expensive one, to be sure ― but then, having been raised on Tithing and Storehouses, who am I to judge?).

Aye Aye, Captain

Sea Org is Scientology's core governing body, currently led by David Miscavige who holds the rank of Captain.

Apparently in 1967 Ron Hubbard had the idea to take the Church's operations off-shore on ships, away from government oversight and meddling ― much as Brigham Young led the saints West in 1847 out of the United States (ironically, the Mexican-American War soon brought Deseret back into the borders of America).

By the way, David O. McKay briefly entertained the idea of retrofitting a cruise ship into a floating temple to travel around the world and make temple ordinances more easily accessible to the members, so don't knock it!

Anyway, to join Sea Org you have to sign a Billion Year Contract promising your soul to serve Scientology for this life and future ones (consider it the Covenant Path on steroids).  If you think 8-year-olds don't know what they're signing up for when they're baptized, imagine a 13-year-old signing a Billion Year Contract to Scientology.

Once you're a member of Sea Org,  you can marry (but only another Sea Org member, sound familiar?) but you can't have children.  Or, I should say, you can have children, but you'll have to leave Sea Org until they are 6 years old ― after which your child will be raised communally and allowed to visit you on weekends.  

And finally, Scientology has the famous Rehabilitation Project Force, created in 1974.  RPF is a work camp that wayward members get sent to.  So if a person, for example, fails an auditing session, they're sent to RPF (located within Sea Org facilities) to be rehabilitated (but hey, I served a two-year mission and had to abide by the White Handbook, so who am I to judge?).

"Think Sea Org!"

Belief systems provide the framework for understanding the world around us. 

However, I think we severely underestimate how influential our beliefs are to the choices we make.  Being rational creatures, our decisions grow inexorably from the soil-bed of our beliefs.

Most of us who are outsiders to Scientology cannot relate to their lifestyle, anymore than the President of the Church can relate to the non-normative, non 1950s-era standards of behavior today.  "Cap those sleeves, girls!"

But LDS practices and beliefs are just as bizarre to outsiders as Scientology's are to us.  We believe that God forbids coffee and dating before you're sixteen and watching Saving Private Ryan and that a person has to be sealed in the temple to gain exaltation or be damned (sorry Great-Uncle-Billy).

Our beliefs generate a series of cascading, secondary beliefs and actions that flow from the first; we are truly the incarnation of our beliefs, molding our lives into the image of whatever reality we believe in.

Hence, since I am not a Scientologist, I cannot imagine signing a Billion Year Contract to serve the Sea Org ― just as those who are not LDS cannot fathom the fact I have never drank coffee.

So what does belief have to do with discernment?

Evil Fruit?

Dare I say it?  We are far-too cavalier with the doctrines we espouse and teach.

Why?  Because promulgating false beliefs causes incalculable harm to others who shape their lives around error.

Take, for example, the common teaching in the 19th Century by Prophets who said that, in order to obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, you had to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of polygamy.

Well, the same thing is taught today (sans polygamy) ― and confusingly, we're told if you aren't lucky enough to get married in the temple, don't worry, because if you're faithful (i.e., pay tithing and follow the leaders) no blessings will be withheld from you in the eternities (which makes me wonder why any of it matters if we can vicariously and/or in a future life iron out the particulars?).  

Anyway, is it any wonder that, when the truth is not found "in us" (John 1:8), our choices become corrupted?  Not because we are evil, but because we have been taught to believe in falsehood.  As Jesus taught:

   Laying aside
   the commandments of God,
   ye hold to the tradition of men.

(Mark 7:8)

Isaiah taught this in his characteristically charming way, whose words always come to mind when members opine from the pulpit or in Sunday School as to the reasons others leave the Church, pointing the finger of blame (i.e. lazy learners or sinful living) like those perched atop the Great and Spacious Building:

   Who are you mocking?
   At whom do you sneer
   and stick out your tongue?
   Are you not children
   of transgression,
   the offspring of falsehood?

(Isaiah 57:4)

So you see the great challenge we face, which is, to learn to discern truth while having inherited "falsehood."​

What Is Your Top Value?

​Usually what we commonly refer to as "discernment" is nothing more than a reflection of our existing value system.  If something falls "outside" of those core values, we sense (discern) it is "wrong" or "bad."

In other words, our belief system shapes our opinions on politics, religion, economics, cultural standards, and so on.

Which presents an interesting question:  Are our values mixed up?  Are they cross-wired and confusing our discernment?

Well, what is our highest core value?  Which belief reigns supreme?  Because whatever value we cherish most is likely governing the others.

Put another way, our ability to discern is heavily influenced by (and often thwarted by) the values we hold dear.

So let's hope our value system mirrors Christ's, right?  What was the Lord's highest governing value?  Which virtue had preeminence in His heart?

   I led them
   with cords of kindness,
   with the bands of love,
   and I became to them as one
   who eases the yoke
   on their jaws,
   and I bent down to them
   and fed them.

(Hosea 11:4, ESV)

I would argue Christ's governing value was love.  Not just any love, but a love condescending from heaven ("I bent down"), giving one's lifeforce to ameliorate the lives of others ("eased the yoke" "fed them"). 

Unfortunately, most organizations and churches do not place love at the top.  Instead, they place obedience ("the first law of heaven") or authoritarianism ("follow the prophet").

Why?  Because love serves the individual; it is exchanged between persons one-by-one.

But obedience?  Authority?  These serve the collective; they serve the institution and those who control it.

​Swimming Merit Badge

When I was a 13-year-old Boy Scout, I completed the merit badge for swimming.

One of the requirements was to swim a mile, which I did in a mountain lake during Scout Camp.

I'll never forget the feel of mushy lakebed between my toes as I entered the water, or the stink, or watching for leeches at every turn (clearly I was cut-out for indoor, chlorinated swimming pools ― not nature).

But I did it!  I swam a mile and earned my merit badge because I had demonstrated I "knew" how to swim.

Here's the point: my aquatic knowledge was demonstrated by action; I proved I could swim by doing it, not by passing a written test showing understanding of what swimming is.
 
Thus we see that spiritual "knowledge" is demonstrated by our ability to do something with it.  Can we cast out devils?  Can we heal the sick?  Can we raise the dead?  Knowing it can be done is different from knowing how to do it.

Theoretically, let's say, we could complete our PhD dissertation on the mechanics of water displacement; we might become experts, even, able to describe the movement of Michael Phelps as he flies through the pool on the witness stand (i.e., General Conference pulpit); we could have memorized all of the race records and stats (i.e., scriptures) of the great Olympic swimmers in history (i.e. Paul and Peter, etc.) ― but do we KNOW how to swim?

Let's look at a popular verse of scripture that I think we get backwards:

   If any man will do
   his will, he shall know
   of the doctrine,
   whether it be of God,
   or whether I speak of myself.

(John 7:17)

In Sunday School, we quote this verse to imply, for example, that to gain a testimony of tithing we must first pay tithing.

But I don't think the Lord is saying to take the counsel we hear at Church for a test-drive and see how it goes.  That would lead to a lot of false starts and back-tracking and collisions when we fail to observe the fruits from such "doing."

No, this is saying something different (which is why, naturally, people want to use it as a stick to get others into doing things that are NOT God's will, claiming they just need to take it on "faith").

The Savior is teaching that pure knowledge is found in doing God's will (not man's); in other words, only those who do the will of God (already) THEN have the ability to judge whether something possesses His "intelligence" (or the light of truth).

And let me suggest that if there's one thing we need to really "know" through the doing of it ― the most important thing of all, which describes the purpose for experiencing mortality ― it is how to love.

We discover a Grand Key of discernment, which is, having experienced the pure love of Christ, and having loved Him, we can then measure all things against His pure, perfect love.

That which is not love is chaff, which we can let go of.

The Key of Discernment

The pure love of Christ is the key to discerning everything.  Why?  Because something is "of God" and is "good" when it bears His Spirit; and what is God's Spirit, but love?

Look at the connection of "knowing" and "loving" in the following verses:

Scriptural Key No. 1

   Hereby know we
   that we dwell in God,
   and he in us,
   because he hath given
   us of his Spirit.

   God is love;
   and he that dwelleth in love
   dwelleth in God,
   and God in him.

   For love is of God;
   and every one that loveth
   is born of God,
   and knoweth God.

(1 John 4:13, 16, 7)

And if that didn't convince us that the best way to "know" whether something is of God and dwells in His truth is if it possesses His love ― then try this one:

Scriptural Key No. 2

   That ye, being rooted
   ["rooted" shows we're firmly planted; immovable.  But "rooted" in what, exactly?]
   and grounded in love,
   [standing in the Source of love]
   may be able to comprehend
   [discern]
   what is the breadth,
   and length, and depth,
   and height
   [i.e., everything]
   and to know the love of Christ,
   [how do we "know" His love?]
   which passeth knowledge
   [what "passes" knowledge?  What lies beyond knowledge?]
   that ye might be filled
   with all the fulness of God.

(Ephesians 3:17-19)

Assuming we're convinced to discern in the light of Christ's love, then we can easily spot when something carries another spirit.  For example, what is the opposite of love?  What is the antithesis of love?

Which spirit is opposed to love, and yet, is the spirit by which we judge all-too-frequently?

The ANTI-Key to Discernment

Jesus retired to a ship on the sea of Galilee and fell asleep after a long day of preaching.  A great storm threatened to capsize the boat and His frightened shipmates awoke the Lord and said to Him, "Master, carest thou not that we perish?" (Mark 4:38).

Jesus rebuked the wind and calmed the troubled waters with words that could have as easily been intended for the ears of His skittish shipmates, saying, "Peace, be still" (Mark 4:39).

In the quiet that followed, Jesus turned to his followers and posed a question, asking them:

   Why are ye so fearful?

(Mark 4:40)

Why?  Imagine how sheepish the men must have felt who had panicked while the Savior Himself was on board — what in the world did they have to fear?

And what do we have to fear, with Jesus at our side?  For what is the great promise of Christ's love?  To free us from worry and fear and death.

   Perfect love
   casteth out
   all fear.

(Moroni 8:16)

​Notice it says "all fear," not just a sliver or portion of it.  Because if we're discerning in the spirit of fear and judgment (even just a sliver of it) ― rather than in the Spirit of love and freedom ― chances are, we're going to be deceived.

Aren't Some Kinds of Fear Good?

"But Tim!" someone objects.  "What about when God gives us a 'stupor of thought'?  Don't bad feelings warn us something is evil?"

​It's surprising how often we confuse fear with the influence of Spirit.  Paul proclaimed:

   God hath NOT given us
   the spirit of fear,
   but of power, and of love,
   and of a sound mind.

(2 Tim. 1:7)

Why do we attribute feelings of anxiety or apprehension to the Spirit, such as when someone says, "I didn’t feel good about it" ― as though the Spirit were communicating through a case of indigestion?

Sadly, the easiest way for Satan to whisper in our ears is to piggy-back on our natural fears and worries, getting us to confer those feelings with the imprimatur of the Holy Ghost.  What a great coup for the devil!

I suppose some of the confusion may stem from D&C Section 9, where the Lord told Oliver Cowdery that a "stupor of thought" would prevent him from translating ancient records incorrectly.

But how can a stupor of thought be compared to the fruit of fear, when God scolds Oliver in His next breath for "fearing"?

   But you feared,
   and the time is past,
   and it is not expedient now.

(D&C 9:11)

The reason this principle is so important is because many of the things the Lord wants us to accomplish are scary.  That's why they're called "leaps of faith."

Love is the reason we leap, whereas fear paralyzes our ability to act.  Love makes us agents anxiously engaged, whereas fear turns us into objects to be acted upon.

 Part 1: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 2: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 3: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 4: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 5: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs

Evil? What about it?

Since discernment is telling good from evil, we need to know what "good" and "evil" actually are.

You see, we have a twisted view when it comes to evil ― picturing blood and horror and poltergeist movies and children of the corn and gluten-free cookies.  Sure, Satan finds these things useful in a grotesque and juvenile way.

But the greatest evil, remember, is beautiful and pleasing.  Thus we see the devil's trick: getting us to imagine "evil" as if it were an STD ― something puss-filled, pox-marked, poor-smelling, putrid-looking, and poisonous.

Isn't this the way the devil gets us to feel good about ourselves?  "Look at me; I'm not perfect, sure, but at least I'm chlamydia free!" (forgetting Christ taught that harlots shall enter into the kingdom of heaven before gonorrhea-free Pharisees).

Babylon has no wish to sour our stomachs; to the contrary, she wants to whet our appetites.  This is why all the great sins are gilt with gold; they shimmer like silver and repose upon scarlet cushions in the image of respectability.

The best way to deceive the "very elect" is to remodel the Church into a great and spacious temple, making its members feel at home in comfortable chapels that serve as prisons ― warehoused in religions that draw us away from the pure gospel of Christ by preaching the boxes of moralistic living ― trapping disciples in the snare of impotent hierarchies that justify inequality and pride, manifesting a form of godliness without the power thereof ― all the while the devil gets us to admire evil by casting it in the image of godliness, teaching us it resembles heaven when in fact it mirrors hell (the scriptures call this bait-and-switch by a name: "abomination").

So the challenge for us today is figuring out what evil genuinely is.

Fortunately, we are armed with the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God (Eph. 6:17).

​   En garde.

"Hello Evil, My Old Friend"
​
​​In Part 3, we saw that "good" is anything that comes by the gift and power of Christ.

One way to view evil is the opposite ― anything that does not come by the gift and power of Christ.

But is that correct?

When Mormon discussed discernment, he gave us three signs to identify evil by, which include anything that persuades us to:

   (1) believe not in Christ
   (2) to deny Christ
   (3) to serve not God

(Moroni 7:17)

If we applied Mormon's three-pronged test to the Church, do we find any doctrines, practices or policies that are "evil"?

"Surely not, Tim!" someone objects.  "How could the Church possibly deny Christ?  I mean, He's in its name!"

Ask yourself:  What does it mean to "deny Christ"?  Well, isn't the simplest way to deny Christ, to reject what comes by the gift and power of God?   

   I would exhort you
   that ye deny not
   the power of God . . . .

   I exhort you, my brethren,
   that ye deny not
   the gifts of God,
   for they are many.

(Moroni 10:7-8)

Which gifts of God have we returned to Saks Fifth Avenue for store credit?  What power of God have we exchanged for a mess of money?

As they say, denial is a river in Egypt.

Martin, Martin, Martin

Something I like about this Telestial Kingdom is that here (yes, here) we each have a portion of the light of Christ and we all experience a measure of His glory (although not His fullness).

I point this out to say, you are here by the gift and through the power of God.

Let it sink in.  I would go further: you are the gift of God (just as we call the Son the Gift God gave the world, so too are we lower-case "gifts").  Many of God's purposes are accomplished by Him showing forth His power in us.  

So I am not going to call anyone evil.  I will, however, call them wicked on occasion.

Let me explain.  Take Martin Harris (of "deer Jesus" fame).  Now, I don't consider Martin a bad man.  Of all the characters in early Church history, I think Martin is probably the most relatable.

Martin Harris was a man of many contradictions: he financed the printing of the Book of Mormon and yet is partly to blame for losing 116 pages of it; he was an ardent supporter of Joseph Smith but failed to gather to Missouri with him (Martin said from Kirtland, "I didn't leave the Church; the Church left me").  He was one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon but he required some extra help getting there.

Anyway, I find a lot to love in Martin Harris.  Yet the Lord called him a "wicked man" in 1828 (see, D&C 3:12).  

Whoa.  Why did the Lord call a good man like Martin Harris "wicked?"

The Lord told Martin Harris he was wicked because he

   depended upon
   his own judgment
   and boasted
   in his own wisdom.

(D&C 3:13)

​That's all it takes.  But then, not long after, the Lord elaborated on Martin's "wickedness."

   And for this cause I said
   that he is a wicked man,
   for he has sought to take away
   the things wherewith
   you have been entrusted;
   and he has also sought
   to destroy your gift.

(D&C 10:7)

In other words, anyone that seeks to "take away" or "destroy" the gifts that God has liberally given to His children is "wicked."

But I want to make it clear: people aren't evil (they're wicked).

Spirits, though, are a different story.  There are evil spirits.  Satan is called "the evil one" (D&C 93:37).

And while we're on the topic, deeds (a.k.a. "works") can be evil (John 3:19).

I find it helpful to assume every person I meet on earth has some light in them, having kept their first estate and chosen Christ; so they can't be considered "evil" (even if their works are).

An Evil Lie

Where does evil come from?  Philosophers have debated the "problem of evil" for centuries.  Evil often occurs in consequence of us being deceived.  And being deceived is usually a result of our believing (or living) a lie.

   1.  ​God can't lie (Ether 3:12).

   2.  By contrast, the devil is called a liar (D&C 93:25).

   3.  Christ's word is only truth (D&C 84:45).

   4.  By contrast, the devil bears false witness and is a false spirit (D&C 50:2).

   5.  The Lord is filled with pure, perfect love (Moroni 7:47).

   6.  By contrast, the devil seeks the "misery of all mankind" (2 Nephi 2:2).

From these propositions, we can conclude that evil is something that does not abide in God's truth, but believes in a lie.  And when we make choices (often unwittingly) based upon a lie, it makes us miserable.

On the other hand, "good" is everything that abides in God's truth, leading us to believe in Him.  Our faith is shaped by this truth, giving life to the Spirit of Christ in our walk with God, which brings joy.

Look carefully at this statement:

   I will impart unto you
   of my Spirit
   which shall

     (1) enlighten your mind, and

     (2) fill your soul with joy.

Umm, joy?  Really?  Then why am I sad so much?  Sure, joy is a fruit of the spirit (and I have inhaled it at times).  But mortality, in my experience, contains more suffering than joy.  Why? 

   I say unto thee,
   put your trust
   in that Spirit which

     (3) leadeth to do good--

     (4) yea, to do justly,

     (5) to walk humbly,

     (6) to judge righteously;

   and this is my Spirit.
   And by this shall ye know
   all things whatsoever 
   ye desire of me.

(D&C 11:13, 12, 14)
   
"All things?"  What happens when we apply this test to our Church meetings and doctrines?

   - Are our minds "enlightened" during Sunday School and General Conference?

   - Are Church leaders "just" in their dealings with the media, members, and SEC?

   - Do our leaders display discernment and the ability to "judge righteously" in issuing callings?  In the content of their talks?  In their handling of child sexual abuse cases?

We should ask: In what spirit are we trusting?

 Part 1: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 2: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 3: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
 Part 4: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs

"Will the Anti-Christ Please Stand Up"

I am driving some of you crazy by going so slowly in our treatment of discernment; why not jump ahead to the juicy bits?  I can hear Miss Daisy in the back, "Pedal to the metal, mister!" 

"Tim, when are you going to get to the Anti-Christ and his anti-signs?  Show us goats' blood!  Introduce us to the Beast!  We're tired of this tedious doctrinal mush.  And what in the world does death have to do with the gift of discernment?!"

Patience, we are getting there.  We might even find that death plays an important role in the gift of discernment (when you see it, you can decide whether there's any method to my madness).  Then, when we encounter the Man of Lawlessness, we shall be better prepared for it.

But there are a couple of things we need to cover first, you adorable eschatological junkies.  Discernment will help us navigate a future that appears perilous to the faith of many, as Christ forewarned:

   For there shall arise 
   false prophets . . . 
   insomuch that,
   if it were possible,
   they shall deceive 
   the very elect.

(Matt. 24:24)

Yikes!

The "very elect"?  Why do the elect have so much trouble discerning true prophets from false ones ― I mean, if anyone should be able to tell them apart, shouldn't it be the elect?

"Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees"

Several years ago I took my family to Disneyland and became hangry.

We had ridden Splash Mountain and it was well past my lunchtime.  I could have used a nap, too.  My stomach growled unhappily.  The nearest food was located at the Hungry Bear café in Frontierland.

Dripping wet, hungry, exhausted, and appalled at the exorbitant prices being charged for chicken strips and onion rings, I sat down at a picnic table to eat with my wife and children.

Tasting the food, I couldn't even swallow it: it was cold and dry.

That was the last straw.  I sat there and sulked.  I pouted.  I fumed.  The experience has become enshrined in my children's memory (who now call the restaurant "Hangry Bear" in honor of my meltdown).  To make sure I never forget the occasion, they gave me an enamel pin that hangs in my study showing a bear holding the word "HANGRY".

​Jesus was far too meek to ever become hangry (although He never had to endure Disneyland with a gaggle of youngsters, so).

The closest the Lord ever got to becoming hangry, I think, was with His disciples in Matthew 16.

The Pharisees and Sadducees had asked him earlier for a sign from heaven (and nothing makes a person ornery like a bunch of sign-seekers).

Christ gave them the sign of Jonah (Matt. 16:4) and abruptly took off as fast as He could.  He traveled to the opposite side of the Sea of Galilee and his disciples followed.

But the disciples had forgotten to bring lunch.  "You had one job!"  Jesus didn't scold them, though;  He just said:

   Take heed and beware
   of the leaven
   of the Pharisees.

(Matt. 16:6)

Well, the disciples whispered to each other without a clue as to what was going on.  They said to themselves, "It is because we have taken no bread" (Matt. 16:7).

But Jesus overheard them; I can see Him rolling His eyes (is that something mortal Messiahs are allowed to do?), and then He does scold them.

But He didn't scold them for forgetting to bring food, empty stomach notwithstanding, but for their lack of faith and understanding.

After all, He told them, did they not see him feed the five thousand with a few loaves of bread?  Here's a man who can fast for forty days; He'll be okay skipping lunch.

   O ye of little faith . . .
   How is it that ye do not
   understand that I spake it
   not to you concerning bread,
   but that ye should beware
   of the leaven
   of the Pharisees?

(Matt. 16:11)

All of the sudden the disciples have an epiphany.  Something clicks and they understand, finally, what the Lord was saying.  He wasn't talking about bread at all, but about doctrine.

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

(Matt. 16:11)

What is "the doctrine" of the Pharisees?  Would we be able to spot it?  How good is our discernment?
​
Does Christ care about doctrine? 

   You bet He does.

Does Christ care when religious leaders preach the leaven of false doctrine, which promotes unbelief?

   You bet He does.

Discerning the Leaven of the Pharisees: A Modern Case Study

What is leaven?  Yeast.  What does it do?  It makes things grow bigger.  When I make dinner rolls, after the dough rises in the greased bowl, my boys love to punch it down with their fists before I knead and shape it; what had filled a gigantic bowl becomes a small ball I can hold in my hand.  

The Lord's use of "leaven" as a metaphor in relation to the Pharisees (who were oh-so-obedient) is so apt: they were puffed up.  Their doctrine reflected it.  The Pharisees were obsessed with their "righteous" works (which, for the record, did not yield faith in Christ).

But the interesting thing about His use of "leaven" was its relationship to the Passover.  Remember the Seder meal, when the Jews had to eat UN-leavened bread?  What does that tell us?

Does it imply that our salvation comes not through our own "yeast" and efforts ("The Lord loves effort" = *divine eye roll; see Eph. 2:9)?

How do we sprinkle leaven into our doctrine in the Church today?  What is the "Covenant Path" but rapid-rise yeast mixed with sugar and warm water?  We can all see the bubbling in the bowl.

Anyway, I thought it would be fun to use what we've learned about discernment and apply it to President Nelson's recent General Conference address, "Think Celestial."

Because President Nelson fell recently, injuring his back, he wasn't able to speak in the October 2023 General Conference.  Instead, he delivered a pre-recorded message.

In his talk, "Think Celestial," President Nelson said, "Mortality is a master class in learning to choose the things of greatest eternal import." 

Wonderful, I thought!  That's true.  We're off to a great start.  And this notion goes along swimmingly with this Series' subject: choosing.

But things got rocky after that.

"Think Celestial" = "Think Telestial"?

President Nelson reminded us that in his first message as President of the Church he encouraged us to "make the celestial kingdom your eternal goal" and to "begin with the end in mind."  Okay, sounds fine, I guess.  He continues we should "carefully consider where each of your decisions while here on earth will place you in the next world."

Very prudent and reasonable.  So what's "off"?  Something is askew. Let's use our gift of discernment.

President Nelson continued, "Any addiction—be it gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex, or even food—offends God."

(Uh, food? This is where I start feeling guilty about the bag of Hostess powdered donuts I just polished off.)

May I ask: why does President Nelson believe God is so easily offended by conduct that he deems sinful?

This is a tad bit ironic since Elder Bednar taught us that being offended is a choice in his talk (appropriately titled) "And Nothing Shall Offend Them".

But God?  President Nelson's message could be called, "And Just About Everything Offends Him." 

Really though?  Is this the God you know?  Is this the God of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things, who gets offended when we use the term "Mormon"?

"If we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor these nicknames ourselves, He is offended."  (President Nelson, "The Correct Name of the Church", emphasis added).

(Sorry Melchizedek Priesthood; you're a nickname; so now we'll have to refer to you as the Holy Priesthood After the Order of the Son of God.  Wait, what was that?  God said NOT to call it by His name in D&C 107:4?)

Why is President Nelson so preoccupied with behavior?  Why is he concerned about us offending God (when God seems far more concerned with us offending His little ones, see Matt. 18:6)?

A Covenant with Death

​The drama over using the word "Mormon" ― and the repeated emphasis the leaders have placed upon it (there was another talk devoted to it during this Conference) ― underscores where the heart and mind of the Brethren are.

In reality, nothing offends God, except, I guess, the times we are willfully blind and deaf (see D&C 59:21). 

Can anyone explain why the President of the Church is preaching an Offended God?  A Conditional God (remember when he taught that God's love is conditional back in 2003 in "Divine Love")?

What happens to our faith when the leaders spread leaven into the loaf, telling us, "If there is anything in your behavior or environment that offends the Holy Spirit, then the heavens withdraw themselves" (President Nelson, "What We Are Learning and Will Never Forget")?  When the leaders insinuate we shall have broken families and "TK Smoothies" (i.e., sexless bodies) in the hereafter because someone drank coffee?

Take time to ponder this.  What is Headquarters teaching us?  What truth (or untruth) does their message carry?  What are its implications?

Most importantly, where is the focus being placed?  In what (or whom) are they telling us to repose our trust?

Surprise!  Lucky for us, no other than Elder Renlund (of "prophetic prerogative" fame) answers these questions explicitly.

In his talk "Jesus Christ is the Treasure" (so far, so good), he counsels us to not "look beyond the mark" ― and then he goes on (I kid you not) to say:

"When we trust God’s prophet [who?] on the earth today and act on his counsel [whose?], we will find happiness, and we too can be healed [by whom?].  We need to look no further."

That statement beautifully summarizes the problem perfectly.  The members of the Church are being told to "look no further" than the Prophet.

And what is the Prophet teaching?  Moralistic living as a substitute for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Nevermind Lord, we all good with this leaven, yo."

   Part 1: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
   Part 2: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs
   Part 3: Discerning the Signs and Anti-Signs

I spent last week conducting a mock trial in Delaware; in between trainings I was able to digest the messages delivered in General Conference ten days ago.

What's funny is I keep holding out hope, every six months, that we'll move the needle toward Christ, where it belongs ― but each Conference ends with the needle still firmly pointed in the direction of the Church and the Prophet (and tithing, don't forget tithing).

The irony of "Think Celestial" (the latest catchphrase to come out of Conference, sorry Ponderize) is that, because of the fervent and repeated testimonies borne of the Church and of President Nelson ― with Christ thrown in like a cherry atop a banana split ― the leadership is clearly "Thinking Telestial" (see D&C 76:99-100).

Oh well, enough about that; let's apply "Think Celestial" to the topic of discernment.

Ramen Redux

​After reading my last post, someone might say, "Tim, why do we need to fly to Japan at all in order to sample the best ramen, if we can just take David's word for it?"

This question presumes that discernment is merely knowing whether something is good or evil.  But discernment is far more than that.

There's a big difference between knowing something and personally experiencing it.

If all we needed was knowledge, then why is mortality necessary at all?  Doesn't the Spirit already know all things?  Couldn't we just rely on the Spirit to tell us everything?  So what's the purpose of coming to earth?

Maybe we should rename the tree in the Garden of Eden from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, to the Tree of Experience of Good and Evil ― after all, did Eve's knowledge come by spiritual intuition and divine communication, or through personal experience?  How do we incarnate into our muscle memory an appetite for light and love?

That's why Adam and Eve couldn't be told what was bitter and sweet, they had to taste for themselves.  Only after experiencing mortality was Eve able to testify that she had come to "know good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient" (Moses 5:11). 

Reading about someone's pain is a lot different than experiencing the agony of a bad tooth ache yourself; reading about the bliss of the righteous does not compare with the pleasure of smelling bread baking in the oven before a family feast. 

Consider the difference between knowing the best ramen is served at Ruben's Rad Ramen Hut versus savoring its salty beefy broth?

Thus we see, discernment is not a short-cut to God's mysteries; it is not a loophole through which we gain knowledge at the expense of experience.

Instead, discernment is the enlightenment of our spiritual senses through experiencing God ("good") and darkness ("evil") ― and having experienced both, being able to then discern (and choose) the good.

As we'll see, the secret of discernment (and the first principle of all saving knowledge) is that intelligence (which is far greater than mere knowledge) is gained specifically by experiencing Christ.

"Well, Tim, that's what I want!" someone cries.  "When am I going to experience Him?  I want to know Him!  Where is He?"  

I want to suggest that if we really want to know God, the answer is not to see Him, but to see Him in others (see Matt. 25:37-40).

"No Experience Required"

If knowledge of good and evil was the summum bonum of discernment, then how do we account for the devils who followed Lucifer?

For didn't they "know" who God was?  Weren't they possessed of great knowledge (which, incidentally, proved their condemnation)?  How curious: knowledge can as easily damn a person as save them.

Alas, no one can be saved in ignorance, either (D&C 131:6).  Which is why discernment becomes so important: knowledge without discernment is a recipe for disaster.  Knowledge, untempered by love, is dangerous.

Let me try to connect the dots a little more clearly.  Consider the thing that Satan and his followers were denied: a physical body.

   Not knowledge.

The reason their progression was interrupted was not because they couldn't go on gaining knowledge, but because they couldn't continue to gain experience in physical bodies (making them so desperate they would happily possess the bodies of pigs, see Luke 8:33).

If, like me, you've felt like Satan's plan just doesn't add up or make sense, perhaps it is because the standard story we tell to primary children is poppycock.

In the scriptures, we are told Satan wanted to "destroy the agency of man" (Moses 4:3).  By contrast, the Father's plan was to protect our agency: 

   That every man may act
   [and not be acted upon]
   in doctrine and principle
   pertaining to futurity 
   [what does that mean?]
   according to the moral agency
   [what is agency, really?]
   I have given unto him
   [where does our agency come from?]
   that every man may be
   accountable for his own sins.

(D&C 101:78)

(Waaait a minute.  I thought the Father's plan was for a Savior to suffer for our sins so we didn't have to be accountable for them!)

What was the Great Lie that Satan got so many to believe in?  And more importantly, why were one-third part of the hosts of heaven unable to discern between Satan's Lie and the Truth?

If it Ain't Good, is it Evil?

​Normally we divide things into "good" and "bad" lists.  On our good list, we find things like asparagus and alms-giving and adoring the prophet.

On the “bad list” we put things like addiction, abuse and anti-social behavior.
 
Did you notice that both lists completely miss the mark?
 
There are many wonderful yet carnal, and sensual, and devilish things that I wouldn't consider "bad."  Like Sudoku.

The thing that makes something "evil" is if it has none of Christ's light or glory in it.  If a thing possesses none of Christ's Spirit, you see, it is not connected to the True Vine and is therefore perishable and burnable.

Knowledge encompasses what is ― and what is, is often evil.  Can some types of knowledge be considered evil?  Is there knowledge that exists beyond the reach of Christ's light?

Maybe the key lies in understanding the difference between knowledge and "intelligence" (D&C 93:29).

   Ye were also in the beginning
   with the Father;
   [Satan and his followers, too, are as eternal as God is]
   that which is Spirit,
   even the Spirit of truth;
   [so Satan and his followers possessed the Spirit of truth in some measure, right?  Satan was an angel in authority in the presence of God, after all]
   And truth is knowledge
   of things they are,
   and as they were,
   and as they are to come
   [this is a good definition of truth ― to know what is, was and will be.  But even the devils "know" these things; so what were they missing?]

   And whatsoever is more
   or less than this
   [what is the antecedent for "this"]
   is the spirit of that wicked one
   who was a liar
   from the beginning.

(D&C 93:23-25)

Okay, that got interesting at the end.  The Spirit of the Wicked One is compared to a liar; Satan is a liar, sure, but what is the Lie?

An Interlude: The Little Prince

In Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's The Little Prince, the Prince encounters a fox.  I want to quote a part of their exchange.

"I cannot play with you," the fox said.  "I am not tamed."

"What does that mean, 'tame'?"

"To me," said the fox, "you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys.  And I have no need of you.  And you, on your part, have no need of me.  To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes.  But if you tame me, then to you, I shall be unique in all the world.  If you tame me, I shall know the sound of a step that will be different from all the others.  Other steps will have me hurrying back underneath the ground.  Yours will call me, like music, out of my burrow."

"I am beginning to understand," said the Prince.

"Look," said the fox.  "You see the grain-fields down yonder? I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use to me. The wheat fields have nothing to say to me.  But you have hair that is the color of gold. Think how wonderful that will be when you have tamed me!  The grain, which is also golden, will bring me back the thought of you.  And I shall love to listen to the wind in the wheat."

"I have not much time," the Prince said.  "I have a great many things to discover, and things to understand."

"One only understands the things one tames," said the fox.

So the little prince tamed the fox.  And when the hour of his departure drew near--

"Ah," said the fox.  "I shall cry."

"It's your own fault," said the little prince.  "You wanted me to tame you."

"Yes, that is so," said the fox.

"But now you are going to cry!" said the little prince.

"Yes, that is so," said the fox.

"Then it has done you no good at all!"

​"It has done me good," said the fox, "because of the color of the wheat."

Christ Tames Truth
​
How did Christ gain His knowledge and infinite wisdom?  And more importantly, His pure love?

Alma's Magnum Opus

Alma taught some revolutionary doctrine in Chapter 7:12-13; we quote these verses all the time, but I want to take a closer look.

   "And he will take upon him . . .

"Take upon him" is an interesting phrase.  It's another way of saying Christ is going to experience this personally.  But it's more than that.  He is going to "take" this thing "upon" (into) Himself, so that it becomes part of Him.

   death

Wow, okay, that's not what I was expecting.  Christ is going to "tame" death?

Why would Christ, who is the Unshadowed Son, bring death "upon" Himself, into Himself?  Is death now part of His nature?  How is that possible when He is the life of all mankind?

Well, Christ is going to endure Death in a way we cannot fathom, so that He can embody Life.  (For how can you have one without the other?)

There's a lot to read into that one word, Death.  I don't think this is limited to the Cross, to just His physical death.  We're talking about a condition, not an event.

"Death" describes an absence; the loss of something; emptiness of soul; being separated from God and dwelling in darkness.  Death is all-encompassing, but in Christ, so is Life.

   that he may loose
   the bands of death
   which bind his people

This isn't a very rosy depiction of our current condition, is it?  I like to focus on the positive, on nature hikes in the mountains and campfires and smores and my family singing Kumbaya.

But if we really think about it, everything around us is in a perpetual state of death: the reality is we are surrounded by it; we are "bound" by it.

This alarming fact is apparent because everything here ages and dies; even long-lived Redwoods and whales will one day perish; the granite foundations of the earth shall be shivered to cosmic dust when our sun grows cold.

But I don't think of death as a morally objectionable thing; I do not view death as good or evil; it simply is.  Entropy is a constant in our world.  Death can be considered "good" when we die unto the Lord; or death can be viewed as evil when it separates us further from God.

   Those that die in me
   shall not taste of death,
   for it shall be sweet unto them;

   And they that die not in me,
   wo unto them,
   for their death is bitter.

(D&C 42:46-47)

The problem we face is that our eternal spirits ("intelligences") are trapped in a kind of death-loop.  We cannot escape it on our own, this condition of recurring death (which Jacob calls a "monster").

We feed upon death.  If you think about it, the Circle of Life (as we call it) is actually the Circle of Death.

Christ came to liberate us from Death in all of its forms and variations . . . by becoming death.

Wait, what?  Paul taught this mystery:

   No man dieth to himself.
   For whether we die,
   we die unto the Lord.
   For to this end Christ
   both died, and rose,
   and revived, that he might be
   Lord both of the dead
   and living.

​(Romans 14:7-9)

Is it strange Paul calls Christ the "Lord of the Dead"?  But how else would He become Lord of the Living, too?

   It's a packaged deal.

   "and he will take upon him
   their infirmities . . .

This is my favorite part of Alma's sermon: Christ could not save us by merely KNOWING our imperfection, weakness, and sins; His "power of deliverance" came from EXPERIENCING our imperfection, weakness, and sins.

Ask yourself: was Satan willing to EXPERIENCE these things?  Or was he willing to skate by with just knowing them?

   that his bowels may be filled
   with mercy

Here I was surprised: mercy?  Why mercy?  If I had experienced Gethsemane, I imagine I would be calling out for justice instead.  How remarkable that, by drinking the bitter cup, Christ's heart broke instead of hardened, bled instead of seeking recompense.

   according to the flesh
   that he may know

Ah, we see at last how Christ obtained His knowledge; how He "knows" us, all of us, every part of us.

   according to the flesh
   how to succor his people   
   according to their infirmities.

There's a lot to unpack in this statement.  Usually when I hear this verse quoted in Church, people focus on the word "succor."  Succor means to give help, to aid, to furnish relief.

This raises an interesting question: Why did Christ need to experience "in the flesh" these things, as opposed to performing a strictly spiritual redemption?

Well, it's almost as if Alma anticipated our question.  He's going to clarify this doctrine, explaining as clearly as I have found in scripture why we need physical bodies.

You see, a lot of times people suppose discernment is a spiritual act; but discernment requires both the physical and spiritual; it requires "intelligence" (which, as I've explained in previous posts, is the acquisition of light that fuels our agency; specifically, exerting a spiritual influence upon elemental matter, thereby instantiating the unseen or spiritual upon the physical creation (at least when the physical is enticed), expressing into the physical realm the glory of God, which is a manifestation of matter that becomes glorious because it yields to the Spirit, or is "tamed", and becomes God's own tabernacle).

But if I stopped a group of members and asked, "Why did we need to come to earth?", I bet a common answer would be, "To gain a physical body."

"Why do we need a physical body?"

"To become like Heavenly Father."

"Okay," I continue, "Why does the Father need a physical body?"

"Uhhh. . . . "

That's the point where we usually get stumped.  So let's consider the ramifications of Alma's teaching:

   Now the Spirit knoweth
   all things

I believe this proposition; I believe the Spirit of God knows all things that can possibly be known at a given point.  And you know what?  Even if we knew all things, we'd still be incomplete.  Our knowledge would be hollow.  We'd still be inexperienced.

The apostle Paul taught this in a different way:
 
   Though I understand
   all mysteries,
   and all knowledge . . . 
   and have not charity,
   I am nothing.

(1 Cor. 13:2)

Paul is suggesting that knowledge, itself, does not save us, but charity (specifically, the pure love of Christ).  So how did Christ become so loving?  What makes His love "pure"?  And most critically, how does Christ's love redeem the physical creation?

   nevertheless the Son of God
   suffereth 
   according to the flesh
   [third time, in case you're counting]
   that he might take upon him
   [third time, in case you're counting]
   the sins of his people . . .
   according to the
   power of his deliverance.

(Alma 7:12-13)

Let me conclude this post with an observation: the power of deliverance accompanies the power of creation.

In other words, a Creator always possesses the "power of deliverance" for His creations.