The Greatest Miracles

​​As a young boy I loved to listen to stories about the shepherd David who used one smooth stone and some faith to fell the giant Goliath.

Also Samson, who wielded a jawbone to slay his enemies and wrestled lions with his bare hands (it occurs to me now, thinking of him tying fox tails to firebrands, that he must have been a bit of a problem child).

And like many of you, growing up I read the beginning of the Book of Mormon more than any other part, and I fell in love with Nephi who communed with angels and burst the bands of his wicked older brothers (having an older brother myself, I could sympathize). 

But as I grew older, the great feats of strength and faith performed by my boyhood heroes were replaced with more subtle, unheralded examples of heroism, like watching parents care for a special needs child, or a family circle-the-wagons around a recently divorced loved one, or a young father trust in the Lord when diagnosed with cancer. 

I realized that the greatest miracles in life were not splashy one-time wonders — like parting the waters of the Red Sea hither and thither, end of story, roll the end credits Mr. DeMille — but rather the steady, daily sacrifices made in love by those who follow Jesus Christ.

Faith may move mountains, sure, but if we want to move heaven and earth itself, try love.

Charity is Not a Hobby Horse

Towards the end of Nephi’s life, as he finished his record upon the small plates and bid us farewell, Nephi said three times (three!) that he had “charity” (2 Ne. 33:7-9). 

What an odd claim from a man who did not believe in boasting.

I mean, Nephi had an impressive resume; he could have listed any number of remarkable accomplishments, and yet, at the end of all things, with his soul laid bare as it is for all men at death, the thing he thought most important was how much he had loved. 

What good is being king and priest if one hasn't received the pure love of Christ?

This kind of "pure love" is something I search for in myself, wondering if I am one of the "true followers" of Jesus Christ upon whom this gift has been bestowed, or am I just a pretender, a hypocrite?

At the end of the Savior’s mortal life, love was foremost on His mind as well.

Surrounded by His closest companions at the Last Supper, Jesus gave them His testimony.  He said:

   A new commandment
   I give unto you,
   That ye love one another;
   as I have loved you,
   that ye also love one another.

   By this shall ALL men know (!)
   [so this isn't guesswork]
   that ye are my disciples,
   if ye have love one to another.

(John 13:34-35) 

   How? 

How was Jesus able to see in the unschooled fisherman the seasoned apostle who would one day give his life for the Lord he adored?  How does Christ see within every one of us something of eternal worth, souls filled with endless possibility?

   Why? 

Why does Jesus love us?  Just look at us!  Why doesn't He measure our worth in the scales of the past and present like the admissions committee at Harvard, checking our grades and extra curriculars?  Why does He want to unlock our divine potential by sacrificing Himself?

Love will always tip the balance in our favor.

Blood Covenant

Look, sometimes sacrificing a broken heart and contrite spirit is gutting. 

While there is no fear in love, chances are there will be a lot of sorrow.  Perhaps that is why love is associated with blood.  It is the thing that gives us life, and to lose it means death.  It is the sign of the covenant:

   And Moses took the blood,
   and sprinkled it on the people,
   and said, Behold the blood
   of the covenant, which the Lord
   hath made with you
   concerning all these words.

(Exodus 24:8)

Paul taught the testimony of Jesus was sealed with His blood.  That is something to hope in.  Hope is love's companion because it gives us confidence to endure against all odds.  To the end.

What was Christ's promise?  If we hold on to Him, He will guide us through the fender-benders and fiery crashes of eternity, beyond the mists and mockery, through the dreary wastes and darkness, worlds without end.

The Tree of Life is not something we reach at the end of our journey, but the thing that begins it.

Tasting the goodness of Jesus is what gives us the courage to press forward, no matter the cost, regardless of how long it takes, because we know the Father's fulness awaits.

Life is Short: Write More Love Letters

What is the gospel, but Christ's love letter to the Father?

I've decided that life is short and we should write more love letters.

   While we can.

No time to waste; no use longing for what could have been because when you fall in love, you always fall forward.

Maybe it's time to reach out to those who have harmed us and see if there is any ground in which to plant a seedling of grace?

Whatever heartache and heartbreak exists in our relationships, I think there's hope for any heart to yet blossom as a rose.

C.S. Lewis said:

"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. But lock your heart up in a safe, dark, motionless, and your heart will change. It will not be broken, true, but it will become unbreakable. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell."

(C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, London: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1960, 121.)

Elder Holland

The Series, "In the Mouths of Two or Three Witnesses", Parts 1 thru 6, was my love letter to Clark Burt, who has ministered to me as an angel God-sent.

   Who has touched your life?

I've written a love letter to Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (his talk The Inconvenient Messiah drew tears when I read it).  Elder Holland doesn't know me from Adam, but what better way to spread Gilead's healing balm than to declare "I love you" to a stranger, to a neighbor, even to our enemy?
​​
I Love You, Elder Holland

But what do we know,
my love, of longing,
of unrequited heat
felt through an open robe
staring into each other’s bosom
of flesh and bone
aflame with resurrection's blood─
light shining not thru but around, 
framing the darkness between─

     alas untouched
     is the floor beneath our feet.
 
Will we measure time left to us
as the cock crows?
Such picaresque saints
we are: lowly born
in an age of innocence 
no more.  I remember
falling in love with you,
my angel, my teacher,
as inconveniently as love comes
to us ‘fast nags of the cloth.’
 
But now they have pierced our pericardium 
protecting the pungent oil.
Can you feel strength draining
from our roots, robbed
of virtue?  Is it not the lofty
branches, dearest, looking down
upon us, their choking gaze
lingering as the smell of manure
or as the taste of regret?
Oh, my love, do not despair!
there is hope if someone
(if someone like you)
still dungs the dying.

     O deseret, our sweet olea europaea,
     your flowering ovaries 
     blackened against the bark, 
     your trunk a tangle of braided veins 
     holding up a heavy crown . . . 
     the whole head is sick. 

Take my hand, love of my heart, 
let us create something worthy
as if we had the scepter
of Charlemagne, imagine,
or the courage of William who conquered
Harold under the comet,
or the faith of Joan speaking to
Michael in the pasture
wearing men's clothes,
or the plucky nerve of Luther
standing against the Cathedra Petri,
or given our sacred honor
sealing our names to liberty
on the banks of the Thames
before King John─
     or burned in the noonday sun
     beside Joseph as he prophesied
     a future where men would govern
     themselves and have no law but the light
     of Christ to lead them─
 
now history watches
what we do, armed with love alone
as others seek to steal our freedom in Christ
hanging by a thin thread.
​
We have learned by sad experience, my love,
great men are not always wise
and foxes walk upon the desolate mountain.

   Please, beloved, choose.

Love Your Enemies

Perhaps the best change to the Temple Recommend Interview Questions in 2019 was this one:

[FORMER]  

​Q.  Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

Well, that question was problematic.  It was overly-broad and vague.  I work for the government, so do I affiliate with a group whose practices are contrary to the gospel?

And rather than insulate Himself from sinners, didn't Jesus intentionally sit and dine with them?  So there's no 'guilt-by-association' in the Savior's ministry.

But in 2019 the Church reworded the question, removing entirely "groups" and "individuals."  It was a positive change!

No longer is the question framed around people (who we should love and spend time with, if we hope to be reconciled).

[CURRENT]

Q.  Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I like this new question because we are free to embrace everyone (good news, whenever we reduce McCarthyism in the Church).

And it appears we are also free to accept any teachings that are not contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

   Is that how you interpret it?

Because I am now going to talk about a very polarizing figure about whom everyone has an opinion:

   Denver Snuffer.

Blessed Are the Pure in Heart

Gold must be proven seven times in a fire to become pure; I suppose our hearts must become burnt offerings upon God's altar many more times than that before they're rendered free of dross.

But the blessing Christ promised to those who have pure hearts is real: "they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

Denver says he has seen God.  I have no reason to dispute it; I mean, it is a blessing promised in the scriptures to us all.

But neither do I think seeing God makes a person special or better than anyone else.  In summary: seeing God is great; but don't let it go to your head.

   Verily I say unto you
   that it is your privilege,
   and a promise I give unto you
   that have been ordained
   unto this ministry, that inasmuch
   as you strip yourselves
   from jealousies and fears,
   and humble yourselves before me,
   for ye are not sufficiently humble,
   the veil shall be rent
   and you shall see me
   and know that I am.

(D&C 67:10)

I believe that when we follow the spirit of "fear" we become divided; we seek to exclude those who are different from us; we refuse to break bread with them; and in such a spirit of fear, I think it would be difficult to claim a pure heart.

Contrast the approach of the Church towards fundamentalists (polygamists), shunning them and requiring those who wish to be baptized to renounce their families, with the outreach of Denver towards that group, offering reconciliation and charity rather than judgment and recrimination.

Which approach do you view as more loving?

Because I Was Asked

Recently I was asked my opinion about Denver Snuffer.  My initial reaction was, "Why does it matter what I think?"

After all, Jesus Christ is the "head" of the body of believers (Eph. 4:15-16), and more importantly, He is the heart.  Surely the only opinion that matters is the Lord's?

But even Nephi, when asked by his brothers about their father's dream, who hadn't inquired of the Lord, went on to answer their questions.

And so I responded in the same honest spirit in which they asked, and said, "Denver Snuffer is one voice that God has sent forth, and there are many others, and you must raise your voice in the chorus so that the Lord might speak thru many mouths, for His word must reach the nethermost parts of His vineyard."

Ask yourself: should we avoid the writings of C.S. Lewis because he wasn't a member of the Church?  Should we ignore what Emma Smith had to say because she wasn't loyal to Brigham Young?  Do we disregard Sidney Ridgon's spiritual experiences (such as the Vision of the Degrees of Glory) because he didn't gather West?  Do we discount everything Brigham Young said because he was nasty at times?
​
No.  Quite the opposite: the Lord taught us to study and:

   Whoso readeth it,
   let him understand,
   for the Spirit
   manifesteth truth;

   And whoso is enlightened
   by the Spirit
   shall obtain benefit therefrom.

(D&C 91:4-5)

So we are free to read and ponder the writings of Freud, Kierkegaard, Snuffer, John Widtsoe, and the Dalai Lama.

At the same time, we can disregard anything that is contrary to the word of God.

Because at the end of the day, it is not the messenger but the message that matters.

Follow Christ.  Listen for His voice, cling to His word, and watch and be ready.

Amos​

I think we all have "purview" to warn our neighbors.  No permission is ever necessary to do as the Lord directs.

   I sent you out to testify
   and warn the people,
   and it becometh every man
   who hath been warned
   to warn his neighbor.

(D&C 88:81)

Yesterday in Sunday School we studied the Book of Amos.  I couldn't resist texting my friend sitting next to me a link to my poem, Amos, which is a meditation on the current fire raging in religion and in the Church.

I laughed at the respone, "What in the world is this? I have no idea what I'm reading."

What would Amos tell the Church today if he attended our Sacrament Meetings?

No one in Sunday School pointed out the delicious irony of how "purview" today is sorta like High Priest Amaziah telling Amos to stop preaching bad things against the Israelites and to take a hike; he wasn't welcome in Israel (see, Amos 7:10-12).  

In our day, we have Elder Renlund telling members in General Conference to stay in their lane.  I reflected on these words:

   [Ye] commanded the prophets
   saying, Prophesy not.

   Behold, I am pressed under you,
   as a cart is pressed
   that is full of sheaves. 

(Amos 2:12-13)

Over the past couple of months I've pondered how Elder Renlund's words fit within the framework of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Is purview something taught in Christ's words?

If it is, we would be wise to hearken.

If it isn't, then we can shove "purview" into the kitchen junk drawer of our mind with all the other odds and ends ― loose batteries and rubber bands and expired coupons and polygamy ― that clutter our faith.

Clark Burt wrote:

"I have wondered why it is important to the Lord that we should know the righteous from the wicked.  Isn't it enough that He knows?  Why do we need to know who hears and is acquainted with His voice and who does not hear or is not acquainted with His voice?"

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

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

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

   And by this you may know 
   the righteous from the wicked.

(D&C 84:47, 50-53)

Clark concluded, "Do not mistake the words of men, even those in authority, as the words of God.... It is up to us to know the difference."

Applying this test, do you hear the Lord's "voice" in the doctrine of "purview?"

Does it help us come to Christ, or does it discourage us from approaching Him with our questions and concerns?

   Not my purview, not my problem.

Presenting: "Purview"

Spiritual autonomy is rarely encouraged in the Church, if you didn't know already.  I think that is a contributing factor to the widespread disenchantment the rising generation has with the old guard, who stamped out common consent long ago and who preaches "one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks nor declines."

The old rank-and-file military mindset isn't working anymore.

In our walk with God, setting personal boundaries between ourselves and the Church is often viewed as rebellion or apostasy.

I reflect regularly on what Martin Luther said at his "membership council": 

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ― I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other ― my conscience is captive to the Word of God."

(Yes, Luther said that about the Catholic Church ― and they didn't even have to deal with Adam-God or polygamy.)

​But I think it's healthy for the Church when its members "try the spirits" and ask God to opine on the way we do things.  Faith is not something that can be rubber-stamped from a common mold (although obedience can, which explains perhaps why there is so little faith left in Church).

So I'm to the point where I don't feel the need to accept everything taught in General Conference as the gospel truth, unquestioningly.

Whereas before I was taught "Cafeteria Mormons" were less faithful, now I observe members becoming more discerning, choosing the better part.  The dross, the commandments of men?  It holds no appeal to them any more than warmed-over lasagna under the heat lamp that has sat for days and is filled with botulism.  Even if the Lunch Lady tells them to eat up, their own intuition warns against it.

By nature I am a questioner and a truth-tester, searching for a more excellent way by experimenting on the Word in my labratory like a mad scientist.

So I listen to what is taught in General Conference with one ear, and with the other ear I listen to what the Spirit is whispering to me.

When I hear something that appeals to the light of Christ in me, I hold on to it. 

Other times I hear things that earn an eye roll.  And every once-in-a-while something comes along that makes my ears burn.  I rewind the TV and ask myself, "Wait, did he really just say that?"

Such was the case with Elder Renlund's talk "A Framework for Person Revelation".  It is the kind of talk that motivates me to take up goat yoga or something to lower my blood pressure.

Taxiing on the Runway: Ready for Take-Off

Elder Renlund's talk has popped up repeatedly in my ward at Church during the past month: in sacrament talks, priesthood lessons, and even in a bishop's interview I attended.

In my Post The Sword of Laban I made a passing mention to Elder Renlund's talk and I wasn't planning on saying anymore about it (because it speaks for itself and no commentary I can give could ever do justice to what the Spirit has to say about it).

But a comment made by Laura to the Sword of Laban Post made me reconsider.  She said, "Mortals will formulate rules that put God and his revelations in a box.... Doesn’t make sense to me, but who am I to argue? There was so much more that was false about that talk, I hope you will do more posts on it."

I agreed with Laura, though I had no desire at the time to deconstruct Elder Renlund's talk, the way a person plugs their nose when shoveling manure (having cleaned out numerous horse stalls and chicken coops, I am not being hyperbolic).

I responded to her comment, "I have found that messages of this nature, which are proscriptive and dogmatic, carry an energy of judgment which is like a magnet for those who crave certainty. But the fallout, of course, is that such talks grieve the Spirit because they carry a big stick, but ignore the Cross."

A little like Jonah, I wanted to get as far away from "purview" as possible.

Make no mistake: there is real power in Elder Renlund's words (as evidenced by the traction it has already gained in the Church discourse) ― mind you, it's not a power that edifies, but controls; it carries a power I find radioactive, like leaking uranium.  But powerful, nonetheless.

Sad to report, Owls, this talk is already being wielded as a billy club (as it was in my bishop's interview) for crowd-control. 

When someone tells you, "That's not your purview" (as my bishop did) they are effectively saying, "You don't get a say in the matter.  You have no seat at this table.  Your opinion isn't relevant."

It is a conversation killer; there is no discussion after you get beaten down with "purview."

But you know what?  It's not the number of times you get knocked down, but the number of times you get back up.

The Truth About Purview

Like sucking snake venom from a wound, several impressions have come to mind as I've pondered "purview."

Ask yourself:

   1.  What effect does the doctrine of "purview" have on the Law of Common Consent (D&C 26:2)?

   2.  Does the doctrine of "purview" help us to become "one" or does it divide us (D&C 38:27)?

​If Elder Renlund had been speaking about the diversity of operations or the differences of administration, it may have made more sense.  But he was not.  He was talking about the gift of revelation.​

One of the problems I see with Elder Renlund's analogy of runways is that it divides members on the tarmac into spiritual castes.

Leaders assign us to different lanes which creates inequality rather than unity among the Body of Christ.  I mean, how could Elder Renlund keep a straight face while arguing, "Feet, you have no purview so I (the head) have no need of you" (1 Cor. 11:21)?

And it keeps getting worse the farther we follow this analogy: within each airplane, we're stuffed into separate classes: some get to fly First Class, others in Business Class, and the rest of us seated in Coach (Economy) munching on peanuts to keep our mouths full.

But should offices in the Church work like Delta's Medallion Frequent Flyer Program?

Since Elder Renlund is invoking "purview" as a means of organizational behavior and management, we can see that the talk was not, in fact, about personal revelation at all; it's about Traffic Control.

And guess who sits in the airport's Control Tower?

Don't worry where the planes are headed; we're not consulted on the Flight Plans.  And don't even try to enter the cockpit: the TSA will bind you hand and foot.

Does the Lord Teach "Purview?"

Compare the doctrine of "purview" with the following principles taught in scripture:

   1.  Common Consent.  "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith" (D&C 26:2).

   2.  Reasoning Together.  "And now come, saith the Lord . . . and let us reason together, that ye may understand; let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face" (D&C 50:10-11).  Does "reasoning" with each other sound like "when the prophet speaks the debate is over?"

   3.  Equal Privileges.  "And that every man may have an equal privilege" (D&C 88:122).  Does purview promote equality?

   4.  Teach One Another.  "I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom" (D&C 88:77).  Umm.  Didn't Elder Renlund say "doctrine" is the prerogative of the Prophet?  Is this why we're asked to use a General Conference talk when we teach a lesson or speak in Church, so we can recite their words like a catechism?

   5.  No Respeter of Persons.  "I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know [me]" (D&C 1:34-35).  But the Lord will only reveal the important stuff to those with purview, right?

   6.  Don't Trust People who Claim to Hold Purview.  "That man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh" (D&C 1:19).  Wait, aren't we instructed to take counsel from the Prophet and to trust him?

   7.  Everyone Can Speak the Word of God.  "That every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; that faith also might increase in the world" (D&C 1:20-21).  

I suppose if we took this seriously, we'd see a correlation between faith increasing and "every man" speaking in the name of God.  But purview has a way of decreasing faith by limiting the number of men (those with "keys") who are authorized to speak in the name of the Lord.

   8.  The Church Holds the Keys Collectively.  "And now, I speak unto the Church.... Lift up your hearts and rejoice, for unto you the kingdom, or in other words, the keys of the church have been given. Even so. Amen" (D&C 42:18, 69).

Ah, now it all makes sense.  "Purview" is just a new catchphrase, a new way of referring to the authority held by those with priesthood keys, a shortcut furthering the wholesale disenfranchisement of the membership.  

   Got it.

"Economy of Heaven"

Elder Renlund invoked the Economy Class when he quoted Joseph Smith in support of purview.  "It would be 'contrary to the economy of God' for others to receive such revelation," Elder Renlund said, "which belongs on the prophet’s runway."

Let's investigate Joseph Smith's statement and see what we can learn from it.  On April 5, 1833 John Carter wrote a letter to the Elders in Kirtland seeking guidance (we no longer have Carter's letter, which is too bad).

On April 13, 1833, F.G. Williams and Joseph Smith responded to Carter's letter, including a report of Jane Sherwood receiving a vision of angels and of God.

Williams and Smith said, "As it respects the vision you speak of we do not consider ourselves bound to receive any revelation from any one man or woman without being legally constituted and ordained to that authority and given sufficient proof of it, I will inform you that it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church or any one to receive instruction for those in authority higher than themsleves."

Seems clear, doesn't it?  I agree with everthing in that statement.  Since we're discussing rank, we merely have to ask ourselves whose authority is "highest" in the kingdom of God? 

   Well, that would be Christ Jesus.

I mean, this is His church.  So I will continue to follow Him and, with the blessing of this quote from Joseph Smith, feel at liberty to disregard any instruction that is not the word of Christ given by the power of the Holy Ghost, since following such counsel would be bad for the "economy."

But I'm afraid Elder Renlund is using "purview" like the Methodist minister who chided Joseph Smith for claiming he saw God and angels.

​   I was greatly surprised
   at his behavior;
   he treated my communication
   not only lightly, but with
   great contempt,
   saying it was all of the devil,
   that there were no such things
   as visions or revelations in these days;
   that all such things had ceased
   with the apostles.

(JS-H 1:21)

See?  The Methodist preacher was telling Joseph he didn't have "purview."  

And anyone reading Elder Renlund's story about his friend seeking buried scriptures to translate (and footnote no. 18 which says "arrangements were made for him to receive the help and treatment he really needed") will sense Elder Renlund's "contempt" for anyone having the audacity.

Let's See What Christ Says

Rather than using "purview" to outmaneuver each other in the Church in a foolish game of spiritual Checkers, let's look at what Jesus says in D&C 38 about His Church:

   I am no respecter of persons.
   
Well, sure, but the Lord divvies up different callings so we don't have pilots crashing into each other, right?  So it's natural to have some priesthood offices come with the perks of greater purview.

   Wherefore, hear my voice

Whose voice?  Those who have "purview!"

   and follow me,

Follow who exactly?  Those who have "purview!"

   and you shall be a free people

Free to listen only to those with "purview!"

   and ye shall have no laws

"No laws" except those given by those with "purview!"

   but my laws when I come,
   for I am your lawgiver.

Christ is our lawgiver who gives us laws through those with "purview!"

   And let every man esteem
   his brother as himself

But we "esteem" those with "purview" a bit more, don't we.

   And again I say unto you,
   let every man esteem his brother
   as himself.

   For what man among you
   having twelve sons,
   and is no respecter of them,

Oh, so you were serious about that?

   and they serve him obediently,
   and he saith unto the one:
   Be thou clothed in robes
   and sit thou here

You mean, sit thou here on the stand at Church?  Sit thou here in these plush red chairs in General Conference?  You mean sit thou here in the high seats so we will know who has "purview?"

   and to the other:
   Be thou clothed in rags
   and sit thou there―

Oh, I see: sit thou there in the nosebleed section?  Sit thou there where we have no voice in the peanut gallery, shorn of purview?  Sit thou there and raise an arm to the square and hold your tongue?

   and looketh upon his sons
   and saith I am just?

Why would those who claim purview create a hierarchy and preach purview to their subordinates?

   Behold, this I have given unto you
   as a parable, and it is even as I am.
   
   I say
   unto you,
   be one;
   and if ye
   are not one
   ye are not mine.

(D&C 38:16, 22, 24-27)

Does the principle of purview reflect these words of Christ?

Tempting

​It's funny what jumps out at you when you're reading the scriptures with something on your mind.  

Yesterday I read in 3 Nephi 6 with my children about the inequality that broke up the Nephite Church, which says:

   Now the cause of this iniquity
   of the people was this―
   Satan had great power . . . 
   tempting them to seek for power
   and authority
   and riches.

(3 Nephi 6:15)

Most of the mischief we get into comes from seeking power and authority (and riches).  Why won't we learn this one, simple lesson?

Elder Renlund uses purview to elevate those with authority above others; when we all share equally in the gift of the Holy Ghost; when Jesus said he that is greatest shall be the least of all. 

In other words, those who claim to have purview probably don't; and those who make no claim to authority probably do.

For what is the doctrine of purview but a way to aggregate, consolidate, and preserve the authority of leadership?

Why was Christ a spiritual populist?  Why did He reject the aristocratic airs of the Pharisees, teaching us to be like little children (not apostles)? 

Jesus didn't go around telling everyone to look to Bartholomew for purview.

Nurse Ratched

In 1962 author Ken Kesey published the book One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (it was later made into a movie but I haven't seen it).

For those of you who have not read the book, it's about a group of patients in a hospital psychiatric wing. 

The antagonist is Nurse Ratched: a no-nonsense lady who keeps her wards in check (played by Louise Fletcher in the movie who won an Oscar for her performance).

The protagonist Randle McMurphy plans to escape with the other patients in order to get away from the harmful treatment of Nurse Ratched (for example, her shock therapy treatment).

Her cruelty results in one of the characters committing suicide.

Afterwards she coolly tells the mourning inmates, "The best thing we can do is to go on with our daliy routine." 

Upset, McMurphy assaults Ratched and she repays his disobedience by having him lobotomized.  That's right: lobotomized.

Sound depressing?

   Sound familiar? 

The Nurse Will See You Now

I am no literary critic (my wife was the English major), but according to what I've read Nurse Ratched represents "the corrupting influence of instutitonal power and authority. ... Nurse Ratched's superiors turn a blind eye [to her abuses] because she maintains order, keeping the patients from acting out."

The Church is a Hospital?

As you know, the Church is often compared to a hospital (here's an example of Elder Dale G. Renlund doing so). 

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, "The Church is more like a hospital or an aid station, provided for those who are ill and want to get well."  (Elder Holland, "He Hath Filled the Hungry with Good Things," October General Conference, 1997.)

The idea that the Church is a hospital for sinners compares sin with sickness, and the Church as the place we get rehabilitated (you know, as if we were drug addicts needing somewhere to detox from the juice).

Well, is this the worst metaphor in the history of metaphors (except, perhaps, the parable of the pickle)?

The Church-As-HMO

An "HMO" is a Health Maintenance Organization.  They bundle doctors the way cable TV bundles TV channels, trying to keep costs down.

The problem I see with the Church being compared to a hospital is that, first of all, it is more accurately an HMO, and secondly, I don't view the Church's role to be regulating and employing our treating physicians.

   Because Christ is our only Physician.

Third, instead of Christ being our source of healing, this metaphor makes the Church and its priesthood leaders our "in-network" doctors.

Fourth, like in all HMO's, we sacrifice quality of care for a bureaucracy of medical billing and being placed on call-waiting when we want to dispute the bill.

Fifth, and now we're getting to my main objection: it seems like, by the way we're often treated in the Church when we consult directly with Dr. Christ M.D. for treatment (without first getting insurance preauthorization), we find that Christ is, in fact, out-of-network, and not covered by our insurance plan despite the generous premiums and deductibles we've paid.

Sixth, I am wondering what happened to Doctor-Patient Confidentiality?  Maybe I don't want to undergo Chemo: that should be my decision, between me and my Doctor, and not up to the CEO of Intermountain Healthcare (IHC).  Maybe I want to have calf implants even though they make me look ridiculous: that is between me and my Doctor.

Seven, when the Brethren speak about "purview," it reminds me of President Barack Obama who promised, while campaigning for the Affordable Care Act, "If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor!"

   Ummm, if you say so.

I'd like to see my Doctor now.  You can take off the blood pressure cuff.  Like the Greeks said to the apostle Philip:

   Sir, we would see Jesus.

(John 12:21)

We see by this that the Lord's servants are NOT the same as the Lord Himself.  Anyone who claims they stand in for the Lord In Loco Parentis is mistaken.  Such a notion is the opposite of "come unto Christ."  We can impart His word, but we aren't the Word.

Remember, it was Jesus, not Peter, who healed Peter's own Mother-in-Law of her illness (Luke 4:38-39). 

We have a Master of the Healing Arts: what do we need hospitals for when we are being treated in-home by a Doctor who makes house calls?

So why is the Church shuffling me off on a gurney to see the physican's assistant?

Medical Malpractice

Hold on.  Maybe we could retool this metaphor to make it work.

I mean, there are a lot of hospital goofs, such as when they amputate the wrong leg or a patient contracts a staph infection after being admitted.

Doctors carry medical malpractice insurance for a reason!  They make mistakes.  They're just humans, like our leaders.

But because the Church tells us the Prophet can't lead us astray (as though the Prophet were a steady-handed surgeon who never made a mistake in the operating room), it makes it hard for the leaders to admit, "Yup, I severed a nerve on accident.  I'm sorry.  Let's make this right."  

Instead we go through the mental gymnastics of explaining something as simple as the 2015 Exclusion Policy's reversal in which President Nelson essentially blamed God for the snafu (I was not aware 'throwing God under the bus' was in a Prophet's job description).  

Instead, he could have come clean and said, "Look, we messed up.  Let's make this right."

So when we have to choose whether to commit our lives and wellbeing into the hands of the Prophet or into the Hands of Christ, ask yourself: whose hands would you rather hold the scalpel?

Yes, it's great that President Nelson was a heart doctor, but we're not looking for a referral.  We already have a Physician to perform our heart operation:

   A new heart also will I give you.

(Ezek. 36:26)

Yes, President Nelson was a pioneering heart surgeon, but all he could do was give us a mortal heart transplant and pig parts to extend our lives a few years.  

But prophets cannot give us a heart like Christ's. 

That procedure has never been FDA approved for earthly interns-in-residence to perform (FDA = "Father Declares Acceptable"). 

​Only Christ is skilled enough to perform the miracle of giving us a new, everlasting heart that will extend our life eternally.

Example of Religious Malpractice

If you think I'm making too big a deal about this, then you may have missed the recent talks by Elder Ahmand S. Corbitt and Sister Sheri Dew.  The current messaging from Headquarters is alarming.

Sheri Dew said earlier this month to the students at BYU-Hawaii, teaching a Masterclass in Practicing Latter-day Idolatry (!)

   Truth 1: “Because this is the Lord’s Church and Jesus Christ is the one who chooses His prophets, the Savior will never let the prophet lead the Church astray. Period.”

   Truth 2: The living prophet is the most important prophet.

   Truth 3: Prophets hold priesthood keys that set them apart from any other leaders on earth.

   Truth 4: “Sustaining prophets in today’s world takes faith — but not faith in them, faith in Jesus Christ, who called them.”

   Truth 5: Spiritual safety comes from following the prophet. 

I.  Am.  Literally.  Aghast.

Now that I'm thinking this through, maybe the Church is a hospital — you know, one that may very well end up killing us:  "Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors" (by James Anderson and Kathleen Abrahamson, Stud. Health Technol. Inform., 2017).

We Need a Tourniquet

According to recent studies, LDS youth who are LGTB are twice as likely to commit suicide as their peers.  (Green, Amy; Price-Feeney, Myeshia; Dorison, Samuel; Pick, Casey (Aug 2020). "Self-Reported Conversion Efforts and Suicidality Among US LGBTQ Youths and Young Adults, 2018," American Journal of Public Health, 110 (8): 1221–1227)

While I am not a sociologist, I believe there is a kernel of truth in Carol Lynn Pearson's statement: "Many suicides among young Mormon homosexuals, as well as gay people in other religions, can be traced directly to a hostile social and religious environment."  (Carol Lynn Pearson, No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons Around Our Gay Loved Ones, 2007, p. 37)

Ask yourself: how would Jesus minister to His gay son or daughter?  Because they are His children.

Sometimes I wonder, when people refer to the Church as a hospital, "What sort of hospital are we in?"

And more importantly, "What sort of nurses are treating us?"

Beginning at my Sanctuary
a poem

​(Ezekiel 9:6-7)

​Just before Christmas in Nineteen-Forty-Two
cooks at the Oregon State Sanitorium
served scrambled eggs for dinner 
laced with sodium fluoride
to the mental patients
by mistake.

   Forty-seven people
   died.

Sodium fluoride is a pesticide
used to rid kitchens of cockroaches
​and rats.  It is also added to city water 
supplies to prevent dental cavities.  Colorless
and tasteless.  Between five to ten grams will kill
you. 

At the same psychiatric hospital thousands of cremains
were neglected in corroded canisters, forgotten
in the asylum's basement for decades.  
The Oregonian won a Pulitzer 
for the story.

The exterior
of the building is a jewel
of Salem, looking like an ivy university
or steepled seminary instead of a eugenics
laboratory performing lobotomies and sterilizations.
 
   Hiding in plain sight
   is beauty’s parlor trick.
 
A hundred years ago it was not impolitic 
to believe insanity was caused 
by venereal disease
or epilepsy or
spirits.

What’s the point
of all this information
I skimmed off Wikipedia?
Is a church a hospital for sinners?
  
   Are we insane?

On Befriending Prostitutes and Publicans

My favorite expression of Jesus's theology (or more precisely, His "soteriology") is something He said while teaching in the Temple at the end of His mortal life. 

The Scribes and Pharisees had come to argue with him about authority (nothing new) and Jesus gave them a sobering reality-check.

After years of opaque sayings and parables, Jesus decided to cut to the chase (this was new).  After all, He was about to die on the Cross, so maybe He felt like it was time for the gloves to come off.

What He said to the Pharisees was plain as can be; no chance for misunderstanding; it packed a punch like the first bite of unsweetened Greek vanilla yogurt.

   Verily I say unto you,
   That the publicans 
   and the harlots
   go into the kingdom of God
   before you.

(Matthew 21:31)

Turn that declaration inside out, upside down, shake it like a snowglobe and turn it all about ― its meaning doesn't change.

This shocks me every time I read it.

In just one sentence, Jesus flipped all our religious notions on their heads, didn't he, leaving us speechless!

It must have taken hours for the Jews to lift their jaws from the Temple's Outer-Court-floor.

With this simple statement spoken by the Lord, He dashed thousands of years of religious sensibilities straight to the pit.

And the fact that thieves and sex workers get to cut in line at the Pearly Gates in front of the law-abiding Pharisees, it highlights, too, the difficulty we have telling the Wheat from the Tares.

Traditional Interpretation

Let's begin with the traditional interpretation of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares. 

I should qualify this statement: let's begin with the traditional LDS interpretation I was taught growing up. 

Your interpretation might be different than mine in the minor details; but I think the gist of what we were taught in Sunday School is as follows:

   1.  There are good people who are "Wheat," refering to faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

   2.  There are bad people who are called "Tares," which represent the wicked and those who leave the Church because their testimonies weren't strong enough.

   3.  At present, the Lord is letting the Wheat and Tares co-mingle; think of it as a company cocktail party where the angels are disguised as waiters and waitresses passing through the crowd, taking notes on who is drinking hard liquor and getting handsy versus who is ordering Shirley Temples, so they'll know who bundle and burn when the lights go out and the party's over.

   4.  But for now, Tares can come and go, stay or leave the Church, as they will; essentially the Lord is allowing us to pick sides and see whether we can cut the mustard as Wheat by fulfilling our ministering assignments and paying tithing and whatnot.

   5.  In a day fast approaching, the Lord will separate (sift) the Wheat from the Tares.

   6.  At Harvest time, the Wheat will get gathered to a luxury resort and spa called Zion ("barn") where they drink Piña Coladas and safely sun bathe whilst the Tares are torched as stubble with fire falling from above.

   7.  Ergo, STAY IN THE CHURCH in order to be gathered with the Wheat ― or you'll become a Tare and risk getting nuked during Armageddon.

   How'd I do?

The Words of the Parable​

It is time we read the actual text of the parable in Matthew Chapter 13. 

Let's see if our interpretation is correct.

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

   (1)  The first point is perhaps the most important: Jesus is talking about the "kingdom of heaven."  He is not referring to an earthly Church or organization, but the "kingdom" which, He said, is within us.

   (2)  The next thing I am noticing is the seed is called "good."  God only sows good seed.

What makes a seed "good?"  

Well, in horticulture, they call it "seed viability."  This describes the number of seeds that are alive to produce plants.  If you buy a sack of beet seeds, for example, and the package says "90% Viable," then you have a rough idea of the percentage of seed that will sprout. 

   (3)  Notice next that the man sows the entire field; it is universal.  The seed is planted in China and the Congo and Timbuktu.  Everywhere.

I think this is significant because God does not plant His seed in just one nation, kindred, people, or Church.  He indiscriminately "sows" it, throwing seed into the air and letting it drop over the entire world like rain, upon the wicked and just.

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

   (4)  Ah, now we get a bit more detail about the seed.  What was planted?  Wheat.

Wheat of course is the staff of life used to make bread.  Jesus calls himself the Bread of Life, so we see why the seed is "good" ― because it is Christ and His word, which is sown everywhere and redeems mankind.

   (5)  "But while the men slept."  I don't think we should fault these tired, hardworking farmhands for sleeping; after all, we each need a solid 8 hours a night, so I see nothing amiss with the farmhands going to bed per usual.

But "the enemy" comes under the cloak of darkness at night, which we should take to mean, he comes unobserved, without notice.

   (6)  Don't gloss over the fact, either, that this implies God has enemies.  We already know "the natural man is an enemy to God" (Mosiah 3:19).

But the surprising thing is that the Lord seems undisturbed by his enemy's actions.  Why isn't he angry or worked up over what has happened?  Jesus told his disciples: "I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19).

So the parable is teaching us that nothing "the enemy" (Satan) or his servants do should cause us alarm because all their meddling will not thwart the Master's plans.

​​But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

   (7)  Okay, this is good news, indeed!  The Tares do not impede the growth of the Wheat in any way.  So there's no disease that spreads from the Tares over to the Wheat; no cross-contamination to worry about.

   (8)  But the fascinating thing is that the Tares are only spotted when the Wheat begins to bring "forth fruit."

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

   (9)  Now this is where the parable really starts to get interesting, seeing the reaction of the farmhands. 

I mean, they freak out.  They're worried and anxious and run around crying, "What are we going to do?!  Where did all these tares come from?!"

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

   (10)  How are we like these farmhands?  Their first inclination is to go out and roll up their sleeves and start ripping up the weeds like nobody's business.  "Let's get rid of these nasty tares!"  And so they think they'll please their Lord by back-breaking labor and effort and sweating in the hot sun, showing those Tares who's boss!  "Bring me my clippers, I've got some sinners need shaving."

My goodnes, what a bunch of wonderful, misguided activists they were.

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

   (11)  We see the Lord has an entirely different plan to deal with the enemy: do nothing.

That's right!  Complete non-interference.  Like a lamb to the slaughter, the Lord's plan is one of submission, of turning the other cheek.

   Let.  Them.  Be.  

   Forgive.  Them.  Father.  

   (12)  This is of course the last thing we wanted to hear, who are itching to fast-forward to judgment day so the bad guys can get their comeuppance.

​Like the farmhands, we wring our hands at all these wicked, sinful tares running around, wanting to gather them all up and do away with them (at least that's how the comments-section reads on KSL.com).

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

(Matthew 13:24-30)

   (13)  "See, Tim," someone says.  "Those Tares got what they deserved in the end!"

And that, my friends, is precisley why I'm concerned!  Who do we think are the Tares?

​   Verily I say unto you,
   That the publicans 
   and the harlots
   go into the kingdom of God
   before you.

(Matthew 21:31)

No Reason

Do you ever feel happy for no reason?  Just a sudden and unexpected feeling of gratitude washing over you?

This morning I felt that way: grateful for this crazy lifetime in this crazy world and for a Savior Friend who makes it all shine.

So, in this briefest of posts, I simply wanted to shout at the top of my lungs from the rooftops with all the other Owls―

   "God is good!"

   "God is love!"

. . . and hope my shout echos across the canyons to find you wherever you are, whatever adventure or misfortune marks your path, and share a whippet of a poem I wrote recently that I hope will help you on your way.

A Librarian's Nightmare

The inspiration for the poem came as I closed a book I was reading the other night, searching in vain for something to save my place with.

No bookmark in sight, not even a Starburst wrapper.

You might recoil when I tell you how I improvised a solution to my problem.

I turned to the front of the book where the front pages are (you know, the ones that are blank for some reason) and I ripped a strip from one of them.

Voila!  The book itself provided the bookmark.

Bookmark
a poem

    Between chapters
    I tore a page
          from the Lamb’s book
          to mark my place

That's it.  That's all.  

     God is good.

     God is love.

It Tares Me Apart

Our subject is Tares.  Yes, those Tares: the ones Jesus talked about in His parable of the Wheat and Tares.

This is a tricky topic because Tares (as a rule) present as ― and think of themselves as ― Wheat. 

I will be the first to get up from my metal folding chair in the circle at the YMCA and introduce myself: "Hello.  My name is Tim.  I'm a Tare."

Or am I?  We're going to discover several important truths in Jesus's parable, but one of the main points He makes about the Wheat and Tares is we can't tell them apart. 

I suspect we really don't believe that; that we think Jesus must not have been talking to us when He said they were indistinguishable.  I mean, we're not blind, right?

So we want to find a way, deep down, to spot the tell-tale signs of a Tare.  We just need to get out our magnifying glasses; there's got to be black spots or sickly-looking stalks to hint at their true identity.

And we go around, licking our thumbs, applying a sticker to those who fit our notion of what a Wheat should be, and marking those who likely are (we're all-but-certain) Tares.

Here's the rub: do we really think we are better judges of character than the angels of heaven, whom the Lord specifically enjoined from harvesting the Tares because even THEY couldn't tell them apart (D&C 86:5-6)?

But sure . . . go ahead.  Let's get out our sticker books; lots of Tares out there needing stickers.  During General Conference we are warned all about the Tares and how to avoid them (no small feat considering we don't know who they are).

And this is why I have put off this Series until now, because talking about Tares is like the Abbott and Costello sketch Who's On First, going around in circles, in the futile, bathtub-thumping sport we play so well in Church ― the game where we point fingers at the "Tares" out there (you know, the ones ruining society in a handbasket).

​And so in this post I'm going to approach our subject circuitously. 

​Some truths are best comprehended using our peripheral vision.  After all, focusing on the sun may burn our retinas; we'll proceed cautiously and allow our eyes adjust first.

Free Willy

​​Do you know the difference between a wild animal and a feral animal?

I used to think they were the same thing (but maybe the feral dog had rabies), so I looked them up in a dictionary:  

   (1)  A wild animal is one that has always been free, untamed. 

   (2)  A feral animal, though, is one that has escaped domestication.

Here's the sad part: animals that have been placed into captivity (like at the zoo) or house-trained don't thrive if you release them back into the wild.  In fact, the majority of feral animals die after finding freedom.

According to the BBC, "Even a lifetime in the most humane zoo will have left animals too affected by years of sheltered existence. Captive animals seldom learn crucial survival skills . . . and [are] ill equipped for life in the wild. 

"No case makes this more heartbreakingly obvious than the story of Keiko, the orca star of Free Willy (1993). A massive letter-writing campaign demanding his freedom led to Keiko being flown to Iceland in 1999 for release. Unfortunately … he never managed to integrate with a wild population, struggled to hunt, and eventually died of pneumonia in 2002."

I visited Keiko once when he was in residence at the Newport Aquarium in Oregon.  It makes me wonder why he couldn't survive in the wild.

The National Geographic reported:  "'Animals in captivity do not usually have the natural behaviors needed for success in the wild,' said lead author and animal behavior researcher Kristen Jule.  'Their lack of hunting skills and lack of fear towards humans are major disadvantages,' she said."

So to summarize the reason feral animals usually die:

   1.  They have trouble integrating with wild populations

   2.  They are unskilled at hunting

   3.  They are more vulnerable to illness based on living previously in a sheltered environment

   4.  They don't fear humans

So what does all this have to do with Wheat and Tares?

Jokers Wild

Despite what we've been taught all our lives, I want to suggest something that goes against the grain (pardon my pun) of our traditions.

I want to suggest that Wheat is wild.

Normally in Sunday School we're told to watch out for those wild Tares (the ones who are nonconformist); but it is actually the opposite. 

This makes sense when we remember Enoch, of whom it was said: 

   There is a strange
   thing in the land;
   a wild man
   hath come among us.

(Moses 6:38)

And Elijah, too, was a wild guy who rode a motorcycle up to heaven.  The Sirach (a canonized book of the Bible in Catholicism and the Orthodox Church) says that:

   Elijah the prophet
   rose up like fire,
   and his words
   burned like a torch.

(Sirach 48:1).

A "fire" symbolizes something wild and uncontrollable.  Imagine a "wild fire."  In ancient times they didn't have a Forestry Service.  Those blazes burned and were unstoppable.

And let's not forget rough, leather-clad John the Baptist:

   John had his raiment
   of camel’s hair,
   and a leathern girdle
   about his loins; and his meat
   was locusts and wild honey.

(Matt. 3:4)

But the all-time winner for "wild" goes to [opening envelope at the Oscars] . . . the Gentiles!

Perhaps Paul said it best, who said:

   If the root is holy,
   so are the branches.
   
   If some of the branches
   have been broken off,
   and you, though a wild olive shoot,
   have been grafted in
   among the others and now share
   in the nourishing sap
   from the olive root . . .

   For God is able to graft them
   in again. After all, if you were
   cut out of an olive tree
   that is wild by nature . . . into
   a cultivated olive tree.

​(Romans 11:15-17,  23-24; NIV)

If that was confusing, Paul is saying that we (the Gentiles) are "wild." 

And being "wild" is good; after all, the Lord blessed the Gentiles (2 Nephi 10:10); our wild strength is a virtue:

   And because of their much strength
   they have hitherto brought forth,
   from the wild branches, good fruit.

(Jacob 5:36)

But . . . our wild strength can also become our downfall if, and when, we begin "taking strength unto [our]selves" (Jacob 5:48).

This is why Paul said it is imperative that the Gentiles be grafted into the "cultivated olive tree."  What is that?

Look out, though: Satan has a similar plan to tame the wild branches, because what the devil really wants is to domesticate the wheat with the fertilizer of carnal security.

The devil is not going to graft the wild branches into the roots of Christ's gospel.  Instead, Satan's plan is to domesticate the Gentiles and their "wildness" by lulling them to sleep with religion:

   For it shall come to pass
   in that day that the churches
   which are built up,
   and not unto the Lord,
   when the one shall say
   unto the other: Behold, I,
   I am the Lord’s;
   and the others shall say: I,
   I am the Lord’s; and thus shall
   every one say that hath
   built up churches.

(2 Nephi 28:3)

Are we wild or have we been captured and put in the zoo?

Are we grizzly bears stuffed into sweaters, riding a unicycle wearing a fez cap? 

Have our traditions, culture, and language domesticated our faith to the point we "take strength unto ourselves?"

Domestication of Tares

​I recently learned that we aren't supposed to "live the gospel" (which came as quite a shock).

But Clark Burt pointed out that the phrase "living the gospel" does not appear in scripture; and anyway, it is a non-sequitur because the gospel is not what we do but something Christ did for us.

Clark wrote, "This is an example of how tradition makes the word of God of none effect.  Someone invented the phrase 'living the gospel' and it has been repeated so often from the pulpit and among ourselves that it has effectively replaced Christ's gospel."

I liked the way Clark framed these two different approaches towards the gospel (either proclaiming the good news and trusting in Christ's merits alone vs. preaching that obeying the commandments is "living the gospel"), and it perhaps reveals something about Tares.

In the next post we will look at and interpret the Parable itself.  Stay tuned!

Marketing For Beginners

Years ago I read a book about marketing.  It taught me a valuable lesson that I remember to this day.

The research showed that selling to people is simple when you don't make it complicated.

Why?  Because people are not very good at making complex decisions.  One of the best ways to derail our decision-making-ability is to give a person too many options to choose from.  

To explain this principle, the book talked about an experiment that was conducted at the County Fair.  The researchers manned a booth selling jams and preserves.  

At one booth there were, like, 12 different varieties of flavors: marmalade, strawberry, cherry, boysenberry, grape, and so on.

Well, guess what?  Potential customers would come and admire the bottled jams, picking one up and then another, but in the end a majority of them walked away without making a purchase.

At another booth, the researchers only had three options: strawberry, raspberry, and rhubarb (I can't remember exactly, so I am taking some liberties with the specific flavors).  

Well, lo-and-behold, the sales at the 3-item booth were much greater, despite there being fewer options.

Why?

It takes Two

Lucky for us, the Lord has made His gospel extremely simple.

   And this is the gospel
   which I have given unto you--
   that I came into the world
   to do the will of my Father,
   because my Father sent me.

(3 Nephi 27:13)

Walk up to the Lord's booth and we only find one thing: love.  It is called many things in scripture, but the pure love of Christ incorporates all the grace, light, and truth in the world.

But there's another option.  A second booth stands right next to His offering its wares.  It sells all sorts of sin.  Pick your poison.  But at the end of the day, choose we must between these two booths.

We find dualities all over scripture, where opposites are paired so we can choose and be agents:

   - Liberty and captivity
   - Eternal life and death
   - Good and evil
   - Bitter and sweet
   - Light and dark
   - Babylon and Zion
   - Bride and Whore
   - Fear and faith
   - Charity and contention

​There are also two priesthoods: a greater and lesser.  And don't forget there are two laws: a higher and a lesser.

You get the idea.  The Lord sums them all up when He described two roads: (1) one that is straight and narrow, and few there be that find it, and (2) the other wide and broad and many go in thereat.

No Power or Influence

​​So to begin, there are two quotes I want to put on the table. 

​One is from a discourse given by Joseph Smith in 1840, and the other is a JST emendation made in the Book of Romans. 

Liberty Jail was something of a watershed moment for Joseph Smith.  If we read what he said before and after his incarceration, it is almost like listening to two different people.

Post-Liberty-Jail-Joseph had a lot to say about priesthood.  He gave us a doctrine of the priesthood that had distilled upon him like dew from heaven (and as anyone who runs a distillery knows, the best ambrosia is brewed from heavenly dew). 

"Righteous, Dude!"

​   1.  Quote No. 1: "Ordination"

Let's begin with the first quote:

"The power, glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued."

(Joseph Smith, Discourse, Oct. 5, 1840, History of the Church 4:207-209)

If you re-read that quote, it appears Joseph is saying that ordination alone is insufficient to grant divine authority to a person (after all, many are called but few are chosen).

This is not surprising, really, to anyone who believes in a "Great Apostasy."  The Apostasy occurred not because there was a lack of priesthood ordination, but a lack of righteousness. 

In other words, ordination does not, and cannot, perpetuate divine authority.  Each generation must "continue" in righteousness on their own two feet.

2.  Quote No. 2: "Justification"

The second quote is from the JST of Romans 3:24 in which Joseph changed a word.  Just a single word couldn't make that big of a difference, could it?  Judge for yourself:

   Therefore being justified
   /freely/ [Joseph struck freely
   and replaced it with]
   /only/ by his grace.

Hmm. There's nothing wrong with teaching we are justified "freely" by Christ, so why the change?  Doesn't it sound a little too . . . Protestant?

Joseph's change mirrors Paul's doctrine of grace, who taught we are NOT justified by works of the law.  Ever!

   Therefore by the deeds of the law
   there shall no flesh be justified
   in his sight . . .

[now here's the important part I want us to focus on]

   But now the righteousness of God
   [there's that word again, "righteousness"]
   without the law is manifested.

(Romans 3:20-21)

If we blinked we might have missed it:  God's righteousness is revealed not through the law, but specifically "without the law."

Huh?

This is quite the opposite of what we're used to hearing in Church, where we extol the virtues of clean living.  We believe God's righteousness is manifest by our obedience to His commandments, don't we?  Isn't being a goodie-two-shoe the way we glorify God?

But what if obedience to the law is not "righteousness" (so we can discard our Exhibits A thru Z of our good works we were saving to bribe St. Peter with in order to get into heaven). 

On the contrary, what if obedience to the law was merely "self-righteousness."

Call My Lawyer

But here's the problem.  How can we reconcile Joseph's doctrine of grace (that we are justified "only" through Christ's grace) with what it says in D&C 88?

   And again, verily I say unto you,
   that which is governed by law
   is also preserved by law
   and perfected and sanctified
   by the same.

   That which breaketh a law,
   and abideth not by law,
   but seeketh to become a law
   unto itself, and willeth to abide
   in sin, and altogether abideth
   in sin, cannot be sanctified
   by law, neither by mercy,
   justice, nor judgment.

(D&C 88:34-35)

Okay, it sounds like the celestial condominium association has a lot of By-Laws!

For many years we've debated this tug-of-war between law and grace. 

Am I justified by obedience to the law ("preserved and perfected") or by Christ's grace?

I think the key to this passage is found a few verses earlier:

​   And they who are not sanctified
   through the law which I have given
   unto you, even the law of Christ,
   must inherit another kingdom,
   even that of a terrestrial kingdom,
   or that of a telestial kingdom.

   For he who is not able to abide
   the law of a celestial kingdom
   cannot abide a celestial glory.

(D&C 88:21-22)

I've written many times before about higher versus lesser laws. 

For our purposes, and to oversimplify things a bit, the scriptures divide law into two camps: the law of Christ and the lesser law (what Paul described as obedience to the Law of Moses in his day; and in ours it would be obedience to the Church Handbook and leaders).

When we live the Law of Christ, we are exempt from and relieved of following any lesser or inferior laws (see Romans 8:2).

This is the reason Paul said "all things are lawful for me."

   All things are lawful for me,
   but I will not be brought
   under the power of any.

(1 Cor. 6:12)

Now I want to connect this concept of being freed from the lesser law to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  In Hebrews we're told:

   After the similitude of Melchisedec
   there ariseth another priest,
   Who is made, not after the law
   of a carnal commandment,
   but after the power
   of an endless life.

(Hebrews 7:15-16)

I want to suggest that "power" is not found in the law but in the grace of Christ.  The law of Christ is not legalistic; His yoke is "easy."

For what is the "law of Christ" but love?  He commanded us to love God and to love one another: there we find the power and authority of God manifest.

Satan's Power

Here's the rub: while the power of God is manifest without the law, the devil derives his power from our following lesser laws.

I mean, if we truly trusted in Christ's law of grace, and practiced our religion free of lesser laws and carnal commandments, then it could be said of us:

   If all men had been, and were,
   and ever would be,
   like unto Moroni, behold,
   the very powers of hell
   would have been shaken forever;
   yea, the devil would never have
   power over the hearts
   of the children of men.

(Alma 48:17)

You see what it says there about the devil's power? 

The money to pay for the electricity to keep the lights on in hell come from our following a lesser law.

No one would knowingly follow a lesser law, right?  So the craft of the devil is to deceive us into believing we are living a higher law, when in fact we are not.

This, my friends, has all led me to this point:

When Isaiah says we would "call evil good and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20), he was talking about far more than people relabeling sinful behavior as something laudable.

The ultimate switcheroo is to fool us into following the lesser law as if it were Christ's law.  What better way to take us off course than to make us believe we're on the right road when we're not; to impede our progress ― for if we break a law we might see our need to repent; but Satan's true masterstroke is to get us to obey a lesser law and thereby feel justified, and hence believe we have no need to repent.

The greatest evil is to make us believe we are feasting on Christ's word when in fact we are gorging on vomit.

This, then, explains Lucifer's Plan.

   And he became Satan,
   yea, even the devil,
   the father of all lies,
   to deceive and to blind men,
   and to lead them captive
   at his will, even as many
   as would not hearken
   unto my voice.

(Moses 4:4)

Remember what Joseph said earlier about the keys of the priesthood being about obtaining the voice of Jehovah?

The Road Not Taken
Robert Frost

​Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Bacon

Soon after I married my Sweetheart, I was faced with figuring out how to "grow up."  It was not always a smooth transition (the world is often unkind to dreamers and idealists).

My wife likes to tease me, saying if I could have had my way, I would have been an "eternal student" and never left the university.  The library would have been my home and books my family.

But I left Eden (i.e., the academy) where I spent my hours studying and pondering the principles of life, and, like one of the Three Little Pigs, set out to make my way in the world.

Set out to make . . . money?  Was that what life was all about?  What all that schooling was for?

The Big Bad Wolf was waiting for me.  He met me along the way and said, "Tim, you've got to earn a living.  You've got to provide for your family.  Other humans are depending on you now.  You cannot afford to be a dreamer now that you're a family man."

He was not a very nice wolf.  There I was, the father of a young family, tasked with bringing home the bacon . . . and discovering I was the hog.

I clerked for a brief time at a Multi-Level Marketing company (forgive me, I was desperate and I promise to never work for one again); I clerked at a law firm and worked my way up from an associate attorney to partner.

But all the while making money, billing my time in tenth-of-an-hour increments, something about it felt transactional and shallow; I struggled to find meaning in the rat race we call the "business world."

Wasn't life more than food and drink?  How could I escape this banal economy that made me feel like a human resource (yes, companies literally refer to their employees as "HUMAN RESOURCES" ― as if we're all just fuel for Mammon's machine).

It reminded me of what Hugh Nibley said in Approaching Zion:

"Our young people are thoroughly intimidated.  The Mahan Technique of converting life into property has become the normal world economy.

"Satan will control the world economy by putting everything up for sale to anyone who has money.  And how will they get the money?  By going to work for him.  

​"Students ask me in despair, 'If we leave his employ, what will become of us?'"  

"If you are resigned or dedicated to a regime that you do not really like, or that wastes your talents, then you are a prisoner indeed — in Satan’s power."

Henchmen

I think now, looking back, part of my discontent arose from the fact that I wanted the Church to stand up against the "Mahan Technique" that converted life into property. 

Deep down, I wanted the Church to be my white knight riding to the rescue with the gospel of Jesus Christ, with consecration and equality, here to defeat the dragon of Babylon's economy and free us prisoners.

But it was not to be.  Instead of fighting against the adversary's economy, the Church joined forces with it (like the Allied Forces landing in occupied Normandy and signing up with the Nazis). 

Somehow, against all comprehension, the Church "made friends with the mammon of unrighteousness" (Luke 16:9), and took the relationship perhaps a bit too far, becoming bosom buddies, or "friends with benefits." 

It was unrealistic of me to expect the Church to live the United Order or something; but the principles of equality were still an important part of our faith tradition and scriptural cannon.

Ideas of economic justice popped up whenever we talked about Zion, which led to some crazy whiplash, when we spoke of becoming "one" and having no poor among us, and on the other hand seeing the Church behave as one of the wolves of Wall Street.

We became the Poster Child for Babylon's wealth.  Was this Joseph Smith's vision for the Church?

Surely, I wondered, I wasn't the only person who was discomforted by the fact that the Church, who was supposed to be a Bride, had shown herself to be an adulteress (Israel at it again, I guess).

I figured the Church had a plan.  Surely they were biding their time; that we were in the Second Act and, if we waited long enough, the Third Act would reveal the Church playing a long game.  I looked forward to a finale in which the Church turned against its master, Mammon, in an act of redemption, like (spoiler alert) Darth Vadar at the end of Return of the Jedi.

Scroll end credits.

I watched and waited, trying to understand the reasons for the Church's corporate compromises and for its pragmatic decision to adopt the Western cultural mores of mid-twentieth-century America (the era during which our current leadership were in their prime). 

I studied the scriptures for scraps of prophecy to help make sense of what I was witnessing, reading D&C 82:22 and assuming our concessions to Babylon were to secure the Church's survival.

Well, we avoided destruction, alright; but I began to wonder if our fate was something even worse ―

Had we become unwitting henchmen for the Whore?

Cut the Flaxen Cord

How do we separate ourselves from Babylon's economy?

   The time has come
   when the voice of the Lord
   is unto you:
   Go ye out of Babylon;

   Awake and arise
   and go forth to meet
   the Bridegroom.

   Let them, therefore,
   who are among the Gentiles
   flee unto Zion.

(D&C 133:7, 9, 12)
   
When someone tries to defuse a bomb in the movies, sweat pouring down their brow as the bomb's ticker counts down to zero, and they have to choose which color wire to cut (the wrong one will explode them to smithereens), and they finally make their decision, shutting their eyes as they *snip* the wire, holding their breath . . .

. . . did they choose the correct wire?

Well, what wires do we need to cut in order for the Church to flee Babylon?

After all, we're standing before the bomb's ticker and we've got a couple seconds left before everything blows to kingdom-come. 

Which wire do we cut?

I want to suggest that if we're going to defuse this bomb, we need to cut the "flaxen cord."

Nephi described the "flaxen cord" in 2 Nephi 26:

   And the Gentiles are lifted up
   in the pride of their eyes . . .

I discussed pride in my last post, #That Was Dope, so we won't say anymore about that.  But in case anyone has forgotten, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are identified with these Gentiles (D&C 109:60).  So Nephi was talking to us.

   and have stumbled . . .

There's no need to sit around and list the missteps the Church has made over the past 200 years and the various ways we have "stumbled," because I think it would be more helpful to word-link Nephi's use of the term "stumble" with the source text he was using, Isaiah, who said:

   And [the Lord] shall be
​   for a sanctuary;
   but for a stone of stumbling
   and for a rock of offence
   to both the houses of Israel,
   for a gin and for a snare
   to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

(Isaiah 8:14)

This is very interesting: in this single verse, Christ is compared to three separate images:

   1.  A Sanctuary

   2.  A Stumbling Stone

   3.  A Snare

Which of those three things best describes Christ's role in the Church today?  Well, I think if we're talking about the institution (collectively) and not its members (individually), then according to Nephi, it must be No. 2 because he said the Gentiles (Church) have "stumbled." 

What does that mean?  How could a Church called after His name have "stumbled?"  Is it because we have built upon something other than Christ's gospel?

Luckily, Nephi gives us some clarifying information by what he says next.

Have a Nice Trip, See Ya Next Fall   

Nephi explains that the Gentiles are filled with "churchiness" and yet are not built upon Christ's word, or gospel.  So much religion, and so little pure love.

   Because of the greatness
   of their stumbling block,
   that they have built up many churches

As the Lord told Joseph Smith, they "draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" (JS-H 1:19).

Does this description accurately describe the Church today?

   1.  Draw Near to Christ with our Lips?

I like the word "priggish."  I think it describes us pretty well.  We have become priggish, meaning "fussy about trivialities or propriety, especially in a self-righteous or irritating manner," with the name of the Church, haven't we? 

(Convenient how we axed the term "Mormon" only after we had secured the internet domain name for the churchofjesuschrist.org, which had come up for sale just in time.  Nice.) 

In our meetings we hear about Christ a lot.  So I think we're doing well drawing near to Him with our lips.

   2.  Hearts Far From Christ?

But where is the heart of the Church?  Does it reside in Christ's word?  In His bosom?

Well, I don't think it is difficult to discern where the Church's heart is when we look at its fruit.  What is the Church's fruit?

Ask yourself: have the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches (Matt. 13:22) caused our fruit to become rotten?

   3.  Teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men?

No problem with this one, where we find the Church excelling.

   4.  Having a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof?

We certainly have the "forms": the rituals, ordinances, covenants, temple rites, and so forth.  

But do we have the power?​

Pigeon Toed

The reason the Gentiles have "stumbled" and fallen is because they're pigeon toed.

A person is "pigeon toed" if their feet point toward each other rather than forward. 

In our religion, we are pigeon toed when we look to each other and to authority figures rather than facing forward, towards Christ.

Do we "stumble" by seeking the security of certitude?  "I'm in the one true Church.  I don't smoke.  I hold a temple recommend."  

We believe, don't we, that obedience to carnal commandments, following a lesser law, and giving heed to priesthood leaders, is a sign of faith?  When in fact, it is more often a sign of our faithlessness.

Saving faith is facing towards Christ with an eye single to His glory, listening to the still small voice that is the voice of God, hearing Him.

Marden J. Clark said:

​"But surely a testimony, like education and freedom and creativity, is self-creative, is inwardly dynamic and alive, is something to be invested like talents.

"No hot-house plant, a testimony needs exposure to wind and rain and cold to give it toughness, resilience, endurance. It too responds to opposition in all things. It is not meant for a static life — if such a thing were possible." (Liberating Form: Mormon Essays on Religion and Literature, page 67).

The Lord calls us to "awake and arise."  He calls us to "stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world" (D&C 78:14).

So maybe it's time to let us lay aside our testimonies that keep us captive in Babylon: our testimonies of books and of other men, of tithing and commandments, of a thousand things we hear testified to from the pulpit in which we're urged to place our faith.

For those testimonies will not save a single soul.  Instead, let us lay aside all testimonies but one:

The testimony of Jesus.

Then, and only then, will we be freed from Lucifer's leash, the flaxen garrote, and will be in Satan's power no more forever.