Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words “the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her.”

Jury nullification is more specifically any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, acquitting a criminal defendant despite the defendant’s violation of the letter of the law. This verdict need not disagree with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, but may disagree with an instruction, if given by the judge, that the jury is required to apply the law to the defendant if certain facts are found.

Although a jury’s refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of the statute. “Jury nullification” is thus a means for the people to express opposition to an unpopular legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one’s peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

(Taken from the Jury Nullification entry of the Wikipedia. See the entire entry for more information.)

Jury nullification occurs when a jury judges both the facts of a case and the law it is based upon. In modern times it doesn’t occur very often, perhaps because juries are not aware that they have this common law right or power due to modern judges not informing them of the entire jurisdiction of a jury. In fact, judges often do the opposite and give them instructions that they must apply the law. However, the truth is that juries do have this power regardless of what a corrupt judge may say.

Congregational Juries

Our system of church government consists of judges, courts and councils, with witnesses and advocacy, but apparently without juries. However, as all appointments/callings must be approved by the congregation through common consent vote before an appointment/calling is solidified, in reality and practice the congregational members are the juries of the church.

Again, any calling in the church needs to be ratified by the congregational jury. A name is read and a call to ratify is made to the members, who raise their hands in approbation or in opposition, or who do not raise their hands, at all. A count is made and if the voice of the people (the majority) is for the appointment, it goes through. If the voice of the people is against it, it does not go through. In this way the congregational jury renders a verdict of their approval or disapproval of the various appointments/callings. We call this vote sustaining. Nothing in the church happens, nor can happen, without a sustaining vote of the members of the congregation, as that would be tyranny and a usurpation of powers, because all things must be done with the consent of the congregation.

Congregational Nullification

There is, however, another way that the congregational jury renders a verdict. Sometimes policies or instructions are handed out to the members from their leaders without taking a vote. For example, recent First Presidency letters read in sacrament meeting contained instructions to the members concerning the passage of a constitutional amendment on marriage (for California saints) and sacrament meeting behavior, specifically, not using visual aids or asking the congregation to turn to a scripture while giving a talk. These instructions are similar to those received by trial juries from the presiding judge concerning how they are to apply the law to the case. In both instances, neither jury is instructed that they can pass judgment upon the judge’s instructions and discard them if wisdom so dictates.

Many saints get offended when instructions they feel are overbearing or tyrannical come down from their leaders. To prove their point, they’ll sometimes take actions that end up pitting the church against them, such as taking a public stand against the church. This is not the wisest course to take and may lead to their being disfellowshipped, excommunicated or even them just leaving on their own.

The Lord has given us the means to nip all tyranny in His church in the bud via the law of common consent. Just as trial jury nullification exists as a common law right, it also exists as a right of the congregational juries. Simply ignoring all instructions deemed to be unjust, unwise, overbearing, tyrannical or humiliating nullifies the instructions. End of story.

Most instructions given today by leaders are called “counsel.” When members are asked to do something, usually that is the very word used: ask. Anybody can ask anything they want of you. Asking you to do or not to do something does not rob you of your agency. It also does not obligate you to do the thing asked. Like trial juries, congregational juries have the choice to obey instructions received by them from the leaders without another thought, or they can render the instructions null and void by ignoring them.

Anarchy in Action

Both congregational nullification and the raising of the hands in approval/disapproval during a sustaining vote is anarchy in action. Ultimately, always, the people decide all matters of the church. The leaders can do nothing without the consent of the people.

Taking the two examples given above, for those saints who agree with the First Presidency letter on the marriage bill, they can sustain the letter’s instructions by donating time, means and effort to that cause. For those saints who disagree with the letter’s instructions, they can ignore the petition entirely and donate no time, means or effort to it. Just as during sustaining votes, members do not campaign other members to sway votes in favor of or against particular church callings, campaigning need not occur for non-voting uses of the law of common consent. Everything remains peaceful, ordered and anarchic, each man, woman and child of the church casting a verdict on the instructions by their actions.

In the second instance mentioned above, congregational nullification can also occur, should the people think the instructions are unneccessary or unjust. Or, congregational ratification can occur should the people think the instructions are wise and timely. All that is necessary is that each speaker either obey the instructions and stop using visual aids or asking the audience to open their scriptures, or disregard the instructions and use visual aids and ask the congregation to turn to such-and-such a verse.

The bishop or other leaders may attempt to correct a single person who ignores counsel or instruction, but if that person continues to ignore the counsel, or if more than one person ignores the counsel and it becomes apparent that the congregation has passed a verdict against the counsel, by ignoring it, then congregational nullification has occurred and that counsel is now null and void. There is nothing a leader can do with a group of people who refuse to ratify an instruction by obedience to it.

In my own experience, eventually even the most power-tripping leaders will throw up their hands in frustration because peaceful, ordered, anarchic congregational nullification cannot be stopped. No one can be tried for ignoring counsel or petitions. There is no law against it in the church. There are only laws against sin.

Use of Common Consent Stops Tyranny

Jury nullification drives leaders up the wall with frustration, as it limits their power and control over a congregation, but it is one of the means the Lord has set up to stop tyranny in His church. Used as a proper check to usurpation of power, it properly balances the church and puts all saints, leaders and members alike, on equal ground.

So, the next time you receive instructions from your religious leaders you do not agree with, even after prayer and fasting, instead of publicly fighting them and becoming an apostate, instead of striving to get other members in your camp and pit member against member or member against leader, or instead of trying to win the leader over to your cause (which never works), just apply the principle of congregational nullification and ignore the instructions.

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: The dissolution of the corporate LDS Church via “gay marriage”

Previous Common Consent article: Power of the Law of Common Consent

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The dissolution of the corporate LDS Church via “gay marriage”

I’ve stayed out of all the online LDS discussions concerning what is termed “same-sex marriage,” “SSM” or “gay marriage,” after all, I’m an anarchist, so I don’t believe in government involvement in what I consider private affairs. The recent First Presidency letter read in California sacrament meetings asking California saints to do all they could to pass Proposition 8, which would amend the California constitution to have a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, has sparked a lot of online talk among LDS. But I have remained silent.

However, my own belief and understanding has always been that the main reason why the Church (with a capital ‘C,’ indicating the corporate entity, not the lower case ‘c,’ indicating the baptized people of the Lord) is supporting this California constitutional amendment is that “gay marriage” may lead to the dissolution of the corporate Church.

Yes, I am aware of the moral and other reasons that the Church is putting forth for this push to define marriage, in documents such as The Divine Institution of Marriage, which is the Church’s latest press release concerning this issue (and thanks goes to the Faith Promoting Rumor blog for bringing this press release to my attention), but what has gnawed at me for a long time were the legal ramifications. What does this mean to the corporate Church?

The new Church press release briefly mentions some legal aspects of legalized same-sex “marriage.” Here are the two paragraphs devoted to this issue:

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished. (Emphasis mine.)

Apparently, I am not the only one thinking about the legalities of SSM. Just yesterday a LDS saint alerted me of a letter from a stake president who was asking for donations to pass the California Proposition 8. In that letter, here is what the stake president wrote:

The ramifications of this vote are wide-spread and numerous. In places where the definition of marriage has been expanded, institutions have been forced to accept and embrace alternate lifestyles or risk losing government privileges, including tax-exempt status. (Emphasis mine.)

My understanding is that the Church is incorporated in the state of Nevada as a corporate sole, under 501(c)3 tax exemption. Corporations have got to obey the laws of the state in which they are incorporated, right? And states have the “good faith and credit clause” by which they respect and accept the judgments of judges made in other states, right?

So I can conceive of the corporate Church coming to the point where it has to pick sides: either obey the laws of Nevada and keep its corporate charter and articles (and the corporation itself) intact while disregarding the Lord’s moral directives toward homosexuality, or obey the Lord’s moral commandments and disobey the laws of Nevada, effectively opening up the possibility of forced dissolution of the Church.

Now, anyone who has sufficiently gone over this blog should know that I have no problems with the dissolution of the corporate Church. I feel that we should be a free-church, not a corporate state-Church. And I feel that we ought to voluntarily un-incorporate the Church, whether doing so ourselves or by using the services of certain free-church ministries.

But do I really believe that the Church will un-incorporate itself of its own free will? Of course, not. Corporations, like governments, tend to do everything in their power to perpetuate their own existence. However, legalized “gay marriage” may be just the thing that will force un-incorporation upon us, making us a free-church, and finally allowing the natural system of tribal anarchy to reign among the saints, in preparation of all that is prophesied to happen in these days.

If Prop 8 is defeated, and in my opinion, it will be, regardless of how much money is pumped into its campaign by LDS and others, what will happen to the corporate Church? Anybody versed in corporate law is welcome to respond and give his or her understanding as to whether legalized SSM may present a real danger to the life of the Church corporation sole or its tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. As I am not schooled in corporate law, my understanding may be flawed. Feel free to correct me.

Liberty under a free-church

If and when the Church becomes un-incorporated, whether by its own volition or through government force, and we truly are a free-church, proponents of legalized SSM cannot use the law to force the church to accept homosexual arrangements, whether legal or illegal. Because a free-church is outside of the jurisdiction of State regulations, it essentially does not exist in the eyes of the State, therefore all religious pronouncements are of a completely private nature.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: How I get out of jury duty

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Let the Aaronic Priesthood Do Home Teaching and Let the Elders Administer the Sacrament

What is up with the home teaching assignments being placed solely upon shoulders of the Elder’s Quorum? Sure, we elders have a scriptural mandate to “watch over the church” (D&C 20: 42), which includes home teaching, but so does the Aaronic Priesthood.

Take, for example, the priests, who have the duty to “visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties” (D&C 20: 47), i.e. a duty to do home teaching.

And also consider the teachers, who are “to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them; and see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking; and see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty” (D&C 20: 53-55), i.e. they are to do home teaching.

And a teacher “is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires” (D&C 20: 57), which duties include home teaching.

So, why don’t we dump some of those home teaching assignments onto the heads of the priests, teachers and deacons and lighten the load somewhat for the Melchizedek Priesthood, so that the elders can focus on more important things, such as administering the sacrament, which is one of our scriptural mandates, for the Lord said that elders are “to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ—” (D&C 20: 40)?

And why don’t we free up the priests to sit in the congregation with their families instead of having them administer the sacrament in the presence of the elders, which is contrary to scriptural mandate, as that is the duty of the priests (see D&C 20: 46) only when the elders are not present: “But when there is an elder present, he [the priest] is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties” (D&C 20: 50-51)?

And while we’re at it…

…why don’t we dump the monthly home teaching visits in favor of bi-monthly, quarterly (every three months) or bi-annual visits, like some early saints did? Surely, then, our home teaching numbers will approach 100%, despite an ocean of inactives.

Just some thoughts in my head, of late…

Previous Priesthood article: The oath and covenant of the priesthood

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Law of the Harvest: a reality check

I just came across a 460 page ebook called, The Law of the Harvest: Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work written by David G. Stewart, Jr., MD. You can freely download it as a PDF file or even read it online in HTML using the following links:

The Law of the Harvest (PDF)

The Law of the Harvest (HTML)

These links come from Stewart’s web site, www.cumorah.com. The ebook is broken into three sections:

Section I: Trends in LDS Church Growth

The growth, activity, inactivity, retention and other statistics from this section of the book are sobering. Apparently, as a church, we’ve been delusional in our thinking about these topics. If you read nothing else from the book, read this section.

Section II: Church Growth Solutions

This section discusses strategies, lots of them, on how to incorporate what the author has found to be effective missionary work/programs, including member-missionary work. I stress that there is a lot of information here, but for those who like practical approaches, this section might be just what they need. The principles espoused are grounded in the scriptures, so, although I favor a more anarchic approach to all things, including missionary work, I think this section may be of great use for many saints. Not only does Stewart explain what works, but also what doesn’t work, including the current, ineffective Church programs that are adding to the problems.

Section III: Principles of Leadership

As the title indicates, this section is directed to the leaders and what changes they can/should make or what to emphasize or de-emphasize in order to create an effective missionary effort. I applaud his efforts, but counseling the leaders what they should do will fall on deaf ears. Nevertheless, as new leaders often come from non-leaders (members), members who read this section can properly prepare themselves in the case that they ever do become leaders, so his strategy has merit.

Is this the same guy?

I recall being contacted by someone after being released from my mission. He was amassing missionary information to determine and compile the most effective missionary techniques for use by the church. He heard about me through my mission web site because I had sent in some tips I had used on my mission for use by missionaries going to the mission I served in and the my mission web site webmaster actually published them. I don’t recall the name of the individual, but I suspect it is the same guy.

I have not, yet, read through the entire ebook. I’ve so far read the first section and have skimmed over the second and third sections. The ebook is long and contains a lot of information. But, based upon what I’ve read so far, simple downloading it, printing out copies and handing it out to members who are interested in more effective missionary techniques (or even just a single copy to the ward mission leader) may be enough to rekindle the missionary fire in people’s hearts and turn the tide around. At the very least, the first section will awaken us out of our delusional state, thinking that “all is well in Zion.” That is necessary before appropriate changes can be made. If people don’t think anything is broken, nothing gets fixed.

All in all, I give this book the LDS Anarchist grade of five A’s (AAAAA), which signifies an outstanding publication, and encourage all those interested in missionary work or in the actual state of church growth to download it, read it, apply it and pass it on. I’d be interested in knowing what others think of his findings and for those who have applied his techniques, what success they have had.

Previous Preaching the Gospel article: The real meaning of the promise in Moroni 10: 3-5

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Is the King James Version still the best?

There are now a whole lot of English translations of the Bible, much more than there were in the times of Joseph Smith.  (Evidence of this can be seen on the Bible Gateway web site.)  Does the King James Version (KJV) still hold up against all these other, newer translations?  Is this the reason why the KJV is still used in the church, or it is that we have simply become accostomed to using it and don’t want to change to a better version?  Or, is it that we don’t look or haven’t looked at the other, newer versions to compare, therefore we don’t even know what is out there now?  I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I wonder if there were a better version, if we LDS would actually embrace it, or if we are just too set in our ways to make the change.

As an example of some of the recent versions out there, I recently came across a new, literal translation called The Scriptures (TS).  Here is a comparison of the TS and the KJV using the first part of the Sermon on the Mount:

Mattithyahu 5 (TS)
Matthew 5 (KJV)

1 But when He saw the crowds, He went up on a mountain. And when He was seated His taught ones came to Him. (TS)
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: (KJV)
2 And having opened His mouth, He was teaching them, saying, (TS)
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, (KJV)
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the reign of the heavens. (TS)
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (KJV)
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, because they shall be comforted. (TS)
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (KJV)
5 “Blessed are the meek, because they shall inherit the earth. (TS)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (KJV)
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, because they shall be filled. (TS)
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (KJV)
7 “Blessed are the compassionate, because they shall obtain compassion. (TS)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (KJV)
8 “Blessed are the clean in heart, because they shall see Elohim. (TS)
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (KJV)
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they shall be called sons of Elohim. (TS)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (KJV)
10 “Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness’ sake, because theirs is the reign of the heavens. (TS)
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (KJV)
11 “Blessed are you when they reproach and persecute you, and falsely say every wicked word against you, for My sake. (TS)
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (KJV)
12 “Rejoice and be glad, because your reward in the heavens is great. For in this way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (TS)
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (KJV)
13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt becomes tasteless, how shall it be seasoned? For it is no longer of any use but to be thrown out and to be trodden down by men. (TS)
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. (KJV)
14 “You are the light of the world. It is impossible for a city to be hidden on a mountain. (TS)
Ye are the alight of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. (KJV)
15 “Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it shines to all those in the house. (TS)
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (KJV)
16 “Let your light so shine before men, so that they see your good works and praise your Father who is in the heavens. (TS)
Let your alight so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (KJV)
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. (TS)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (KJV)
18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. (TS)
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)
19 “Whoever, then breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. (TS)
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (KJV)
20 “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter in to the reign of the heavens. (TS)
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (KJV)
21 “You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. (TS)
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: (KJV)
22 “But I say to you that whoever is wroth with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raka!’ shall be liable to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to fire of Gehenna. (TS)
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (KJV)
23 “If, then, you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother holds whatever against you, (TS)
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; (KJV)
24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go, first make peace with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (TS)
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. (KJV)
25 “Be well-minded with your opponent, promptly, while you are on the way with him, lest your opponent deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. (TS)
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (KJV)
26 “Truly, I say to you, you shall by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. (TS)
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. (KJV)
27 “You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ (TS)
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (KJV)
28 “But I say to you that everyone looking at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (TS)
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (KJV)
29 “And if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is better for you that one of your members perish, than for your entire body to be thrown into Gehenna. (TS)
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (KJV)
30 “And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. For it is better for you that one of your members perish, than for your entire body to be thrown into Gehenna. (TS)
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (KJV)
31 “And it has been said, ‘Whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ (TS)
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (KJV)
32 “But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery. (TS)
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (KJV)
33 “Again, you heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to [this translation uses the four Hebrew letters that represent the name of Jehovah].’ (TS)
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: (KJV)
34 “But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by the heaven, because it is Elohim’s throne; (TS)
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: (KJV)
35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Yerushalayim, for it is the city of the great Sovereign; (TS)
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. (KJV)
36 nor swear by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. (TS)
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. (KJV)
37 “But let your word ‘Yea’ be ‘Yea,’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ And what goes beyond these is from the wicked one. (TS)
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (KJV)
38 “You heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ (TS)
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: (KJV)
39 but I say to you, do not resist the wicked. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (TS)
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (KJV)
40 “And he who wishes to sue you and take away your inner garment, let him have your outer garment as well. (TS)
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. (KJV)
41 “And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. (TS)
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. (KJV)
42 “Give to him who asks of you, and from him who wishes to borrow from you, do not turn away. (TS)
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (KJV)
43 “You heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ (TS)
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. (KJV)
44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those insulting you and persecuting you, (TS)
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (KJV)
45 so that you become sons of your Father in the heavens. Because He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. (TS)
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (KJV)
46 “For if you love those loving you, what reward have you? Are the tax collectors not doing the same too? (TS)
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? (KJV)
47 “And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Are the tax collectors not doing so too? (TS)
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? (KJV)
48 “Therefore, be perfect, as your Father in the heavens is perfect. (TS)
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (KJV)

(Note: The above TS translation was taken from the free PDF download of the Book of Mattithyahu (Matthew) available from the Institute for Scripture Research web site. I carefully typed by hand all the text, but there may still be typos. To assure that the text is typo-free, download the .pdf file and compare it to your KJV scriptures.)

So, what is the general opinion, is the King James Version still the best of all the translations?  And if not, are we too stuck in our ways to change to another translation?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Is the church under attack?

I just now came across a post by Bryce Haymond of the Temple Study blog entitled, The Grossest Form of Church Criticism, in which he states:

In recent weeks I have encountered what I consider to be one of the most damaging forms of criticism of the Church….It is that criticism which comes from within the Church.

He then goes on to quote President Benson as well as the scriptures and he lists the attributes of the LDS he is referring to, but without actually naming who they are or from what quarter they are coming.  I am not aware of apostates within my own ward and stake, so I am assuming that these criticisms are coming from LDS online, but maybe he is referring to critics within his own locality.  I don’t know.

The post has comments closed, so I wasn’t able to ask him what these critics are saying or who they are.  Does anyone know of a recent barrage of criticism from LDS towards the leadership or doctrine of the church?  Is there a recent division in the church that I don’t know of?  (I’m not one to regularly surf the “Bloggernacle” so anyone with information, please divulge.  Thanks.)

Warning: Bryce’s post is pretty harsh, though it contains many scriptures and thus, much truth.  There are some things I don’t agree with in his post, of course, but I’m not asking anyone to analyze whether his accusations or conclusions are founded or unfounded toward these people, whoever they are, I’m just curious as to whom he is referring, if anyone knows.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The many definitions of adultery

Note: This post deals with physical adultery in marriage and not with spiritual adultery (committing adultery in thought or committing adultery against God by going after idols, etc.)

The Bible’s Definition of Adultery

• Adultery = “Unlawful breach of a marriage covenant; consisting of a man (married or unmarried) having sexual intercourse with a woman who is either married or betrothed to another man.”

• Adulterer = “A man who has sexual intercourse with the wife or betrothed of another man.”

• Adulteress = “A married or betrothed woman who has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband.”

The Hebrew word for adultery is na’aph and refers to a “woman that breaks wedlock.”  (See Strong’s #5003.)

To explore the biblical definition of adultery, lets set up some imaginary couples with which to mix and match and come up with an ADULTERY or NOT ADULTERY conclusion.

Two Non-Temple Marriages Aaron and Abigail were married to each other outside of the temple.  Brad and Bertha were married to each other outside of the temple. Two Singles Charles is a single man.  Deborah is a single woman.

So, using the above imaginary people in pretended affairs, we come to the following conclusions:

ADULTERY

If Abigail and Brad have an affair, both are guilty of ADULTERY because Abigail is married to (belongs to) Aaron and not Brad.

If Bertha and Aaron have an affair, both are guilty of ADULTERY because Bertha is married to (belongs to) Brad and not Aaron.

If either Abigail or Bertha has an affair with Charles, all parties are guilty of ADULTERY because Abigail and Bertha are both married to (belong to) men other than Charles.

NOT ADULTERY

If either Aaron, Brad or Charles has an affair with Deborah, this is NOT ADULTERY because Deborah is not a married woman (does not belong to anyone.)

If we add a polygynous marriage (which was practiced during the time of the Bible) to the above couples, we get the following:

One Polygynous Non-Temple Marriage Peter is married to both Polly and Patricia outside of the temple.

All the same rules apply as above when you mix and match people in affairs.  Also, when you put Peter with either Polly or Patricia, you don’t get adultery.

NOT ADULTERY

If Peter is with Polly, this is NOT ADULTERY as Polly is married to (belongs to) Peter.  If Peter is with Patricia, this is NOT ADULTERY as Patricia is married to (belongs to) Peter.

Scriptures that pertain to this definition:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.  (Leviticus 20: 10)

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you  (Deuteronomy 22: 22-24)

(See also Proverbs 6: 20 - 7: 27)

To understand the above, it is important to grasp the concept of the biblical marriage covenant or contract.  In all the biblical marriage contracts, the woman was joined to the man, not vice versa.  Thus, the woman was given to the man and the man received the woman, not vice versa.  So, the married woman belonged to the man, meaning that she was his property (according to Encyclopaedia Judaica) and he had exclusive right to her and not vice versa.  This is why the biblical definition of adultery always deals with what occurs between a married woman and someone other than her husband.

In modern civil marriages, each one is said to belong to each other and/or to give him or herself to his or her spouse and they often exchange vows.  This was not what occurred with the people of the Lord during the time of the Bible.

To read an in-depth exegesis of the biblical laws concerning marriage, adultery, etc., please review the following, well-written articles courtesy of the Christian (non-LDS) Righteous Warriors web site:

Biblical Polygyny (part 1): Definition of Words

Biblical Polygyny (part 2): Polygyny in Scripture

Biblical Polygyny (part 3): Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

Biblical Polygyny (part 4): Common Objections to Polygyny

Biblical Polygyny (part 5): Clash of Cultures

An Open Letter to the Christian Church Regarding Polygyny

Biblical Definitions of Important Terms

These same articles, and others, are also listed on their Controversial Truths page.

The Definition of Adultery Given by the Lord to Joseph Smith

The following revelations were given by the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith when he inquired about adultery:

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.  If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.  And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.  And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.  (D&C 132: 41-44)

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.  And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.  But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.  (D&C 132: 61-63)

It is important to realize that the temple ceremony which unites a man and his wife for time and all eternity by the holy priesthood, has it so that the man is under no vow to his wife and also that the man receives the woman and the woman is given to the man and not vice versa. In fact, the wording of the above revelation indicates that the woman then belongs to the man, just as the ancient Jews were married.

Now, lets make up another imaginary group of people, with temple marriages included, as well as a polyandrous marriage:

Three Temple Marriages Ephraim and Ethel were married to each other in the temple for time and all eternity.  Felipe and Fanny were married to each other in the temple for time and all eternity.  Felix and Fiona were married to each other in the temple for time and all eternity.  Also, Felipe has been “appointed unto Fiona by the holy anointing.” Two Non-Temple Marriages Garrett and Gigi were married outside of the temple, Garrett taking a vow of fidelity.  Henry and Harriet were married outside of the temple, but Henry took no vow.  Two Singles Ian is a single man.  Jill is a single woman.

So, using the Lord’s definition of adultery given to Joseph Smith and the above imaginary people in pretended affairs, we come to the following conclusions:

ADULTERY

If Ethel has an affair with Felipe, Felix, Garrett, Henry or Ian, all parties are guilty of ADULTERY because Ethel is married to (belongs to) Ephraim and not to any of these other men.

If Fanny has an affair with Ephraim, Felix, Garrett, Henry or Ian, all parties are guilty of ADULTERY because Fanny is married to (belongs to) Felipe and not to any of these other men.

If Fiona has an affair with Ephraim, Garrett, Henry or Ian, all parties are guilty of ADULTERY because Fanny is married to (belongs to) Felix and not to any of these other men.

If Gigi has an affair with Ephraim, Felipe, Felix, Henry or Ian, all parties are guilty of ADULTERY because Gigi is married to (belongs to) Garrett and not to any of these other men.

If Harriet has an affair with Ephraim, Felipe, Felix, Garrett or Ian, all parties are guilty of ADULTERY because Harriet is married to (belongs to) Henry and not to any of these other men.

If Jill has an affair with Garrett, this is ADULTERY because although Jill is married to (belongs to) no man, Garrett is under a vow to Gigi.

NOT ADULTERY

If Fiona has an affair with Felipe, this is NOT ADULTERY because Felipe is “appointed unto her by the holy anointing,” meaning that she is married to (belongs to) both Felix and Felipe, her husbands.

If Jill has an affair with Ephraim, Felipe, Felix, Henry or Ian, this is NOT ADULTERY because Jill is married to (belongs to) no man and none of these men are under a vow.

If we add a polygynous marriage (which was practiced during the early days of the restored church) to the above couples, we get the following:

One Polygynous Non-Temple Marriage Peter is married to both Polly and Patricia outside of the temple.

All the same rules apply as above when you mix and match people in affairs.  Also, when you put Peter with either Polly or Patricia, you don’t get adultery.

NOT ADULTERY

If Peter is with Polly, this is NOT ADULTERY as Polly is married to (belongs to) Peter.  If Peter is with Patricia, this is NOT ADULTERY as Patricia is married to (belongs to) Peter.

The Lord’s definition of adultery coincides with the biblical definition, with the addition of two points: that a man who is under a vow can commit adultery with an unmarried woman and that polyandry (a wife with multiple husbands) is a sanctioned practice if appointed by the holy anointing.  Thus, the marriage laws revealed by the Lord to Joseph Smith is rightly called plural marriage or polygamy as it encompasses both polygyny and polyandry.

Modern Dictionary Definition of Adultery

If you look at any modern dictionary under the entry of “adultery,” you’ll find a definition similar to the following:

“voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery”

(Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary’s entry on adultery)

Most, if not all, churches and legal entities (governments) subscribe to this modern view of adultery.

During the time of Joseph Smith, the dictionary in use was Noah Webster’s first edition, published in 1828.  Under the entry of “adultery” that dictionary give the following definition:

ADUL’TERY, n. [L. adulterium. See Adulterate.]

1. Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspring.

By the laws of Connecticut, the sexual intercourse of any man, with a married woman, is the crime of adultery in both: such intercourse of a married man, with an unmarried woman, is fornication in both, and adultery of the man, within the meaning of the law respecting divorce; but not a felonious adultery in either, or the crime of adultery at common law, or by statute. This latter offense is, in England, proceeded with only in the ecclesiastical courts.

In common usage, adultery means the unfaithfulness of any married person to the marriage bed. In England, Parliament grant absolute divorces for infidelity to the marriage bed in either party; and the spiritual courts divorce a mensa et thoro.

(Taken from http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/adultery)

It is interesting to note that the 1828 definition is essentially the same as the 2008 dictionary definitions, which means that Joseph broke away from the definition of “adultery” that was current for his time and returned to a practice that almost exactly matched that of the biblical definition.

Modern LDS Church’s Definition of Adultery

In the book, True to the Faith, published by the Church, we read under the Chastity entry the following definitions of the sins of adultery and fornication:

The Ten Commandments include the command that we not commit adultery, which is sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband (see Exodus 20:14). The Apostle Paul said that it is “the will of God” that we “abstain from fornication,” which is sexual intercourse between an unmarried person and anyone else (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Latter-day prophets repeatedly speak out against these sins and against the evil practice of sexual abuse.

This definition is identical to the one found in modern dictionaries and is how most people define adultery, nevertheless, it departs from both the biblical definition as well as the one given by the Lord to Joseph Smith.

Definition of Sexual Intercourse

Although I don’t know the exact standards given to our priesthood leaders as to what kind or kinds of sexual intercourse could result in adultery, I do know from my experience in talking with two women who have broken the law of chastity that oral sex does not constitute, in the eyes of the priesthood leadership, adultery. This was surprising to me, as I believe most Americans think that a married man or woman having oral sex with someone who is not his or her spouse is adultery. But on this point, the leadership breaks with the ideas of modern society.  Full frontal intercourse definitely qualifies as possible adulterous activity, but I do not know about “the back door” kind.

Conclusion

All of this shows that adultery is defined in various and sundry ways.  Adultery is widely interpreted and assigned to all extramarital affairs—extramarital being anything outside of the first marriage, as polygyny and polyandry is not recognized as valid—by modern legal systems and churches (including the modern LDS Church), whereas the biblical model narrows it down quite a bit to only extramarital affairs involving married women and excluding polygynous relationships.  The Joseph Smith model adopts the biblical model and expands it to include vow-breaking men, while narrowing it to exclude polyandrous relationships anointed by the priesthood.  And finally, the world looks upon any extra-marital sexual activity to be adulterous, while the Church has more narrow definitions.

It may be helpful to keep all of this in mind the next time you hear that someone has had an “adulterous relationship.”  Depending on the model you choose to use to define adultery, the act may more aptly be titled fornication.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Armageddon in the Atomic Age

1,538 words

© Anthony E. Larson, 2002

 Armageddon in the Atomic Age

Try to name all of the changes that the atom bomb and technology brought to our world in the middle of the last century. It certainly changed warfare; even populations far from any battle could be held hostage to annihilation. It changed politics and diplomacy; nuclear capable countries became overnight “superpowers.” It changed science; nothing since Newton’s laws of gravity or Copernicus’ heliocentrism has so profoundly effected our views of the universe.

In reality, it’s hard to find some aspect of our lives that hasn’t changed in one way or another, due to the advent of the atomic age.

In fact, as unlikely as it may seem to the average Latter-day Saint, the atom bomb even changed our view of the scriptures and prophecy. Today’s Mormons, and Christians in general, have a radically different view of scriptural prophecy than their ancestors, thanks largely to the advent of the atomic age.

Historically, from the days of the primitive church up until the restoration, prophesied destructions of the last days such as those uttered by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, the Apostle John in his Revelation and even the Savior himself were viewed as the acts of an all-powerful God. The pronounced tumult and cataclysm in the heavens and on the earth, predicted to occur prior to the Savior’s second coming, were seen by Christians as the forces of nature responding to the commands of their creator.

The founder of this dispensation, Joseph Smith, also foresaw the calamities of the last days as a series of natural disasters. So, that’s how Mormons saw it, up until the middle of the 20th century.

All that changed the day the first A-bomb was detonated in July 1945. ”A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent,” recalled J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the A-bomb, who witnessed the first explosion of an atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert. The awe-inspiring power of that blast reminded Oppenheimer of a line from the Hindu sacred book, the Bhagavad-Gita: ”I am become death: the destroyer of worlds.”

Oppenheimer wasn’t the only one to see mankind in a new, world-destroying light. From that point on, Christians began to see the atom bomb as the embodiment of God’s prophesied wrath. From Herbert W. Armstrong’s “World Tomorrow” radio ministry of the 1950s to Hal Lindsay’s book and movie, “The Late, Great Planet Earth” in the late 1960s, Christian ministers began to interpret the fantastic imagery seen in prophecy as immensely powerful super-weapons, nuclear weapons being the cornerstone of their exegesis–Armageddon.

It’s easy to see why. The bomb’s mushroom cloud looked like the pillars of “fire and smoke” envisioned in prophecy, its shockwave became the “blast from heaven,” the soot and ash from its fallout darkened the sky, as in prophecy, and the long, deafening roar and rumble it produced became the “sound of many waters.” Given its remarkable similarity to biblical “fire and brimstone,” and the effects of nuclear radiation exposure from fallout to the “sores, boils, blains, blights and murrains” of prophetic scripture, the A-bomb was seen as the tailor-made fulfillment of prophecy.

What’s more, the 20^th century brought with it the development of extremely sophisticated machinery that completely replaced the crude weapons of yesteryear. Thanks to the development of airplanes, missiles and rockets, modern warfare expanded into an entirely new realm: the skies above us. Technology brought us jet airplanes and missiles that “roar upon the tops of the mountains,” tanks and attack helicopters with a “sting like scorpions tails,” and a multitude of other high-tech weapons such as missiles and lasers whose effects seem similar to the extravagant imagery of prophecy.

Then, the space age took man and his technologically advanced weapons into the very heavens themselves. Once the sole venue of God’s prophesied vengeance, the heavens were now mankind’s domain as well. Man could now wield god-like power both on earth and in the heavens.

All this technological development brought about a revolutionary revision in biblical interpretation in Christianity and among Mormons as well. These astounding technical advances and these super-weapons had a profound effect on the thinking of the Christian clergy as they read and interpreted prophecy. A whole new breed of millennialists appeared who saw the fulfillment of latter-day prophecies in the technological advancements of mankind. Religionists now proclaim that man with his super-weapons, not God, will be Apollyon (Abaddon), the destroyer, as noted by the apostle John in his Revelation. Mankind now had the power to single-handedly fulfill all prophecy of the last days and bring about Armageddon all on his own.

In fine, God was no longer necessary to the fulfillment of prophecy. Mankind would now provide all the elements of prophecy: pillars of fire devastating vast expanses and destroying whole populations, a quaking earth ruptured by super-powerful atomic bombs and the roaring of incredibly powerful and lethal flying machines, ashen skies that turned the moon red and darkened the sun, death from virile plagues and toxic poisons unleashed on a hapless world populace in chemical and biological weapons, a “scorched earth” warfare that would leave a vast wasteland in the wake of advancing armies with super weapons.

God could sit on the sidelines, a celestial spectator, while we would bring about the end of the world all on our own. Deus ex homonum!

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Clearly, the egotism and myopia of modern man had overtaken the proper view of prophecy.

The problem is that this twisted view of prophecy has been allowed to stand. Nearly every Christian - Latter-day Saints included - see the fulfillment of prophecy in these same terms. But it is a badly flawed view that should be corrected. This kind of myopic, egoistic interpretation is easily demolished when we look to the scriptures as accurate, eyewitness accounts of God’s dealings with his children.

For example, no Latter-day Saint in his or her right mind would suggest that the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was really an atomic bomb. Early man had neither the technology nor the knowledge to produce such a weapon. It was destruction from God, not man.

And what about the fire from heaven that consumed Elijah’s sacrifice on Mt. Carmel or the blast that destroyed the Assyrian army of Sennacherib as he lay siege to Jerusalem in the days of Isaiah? Ancient man could not have done that, but God could. Recall that “all the face of the land” was changed in the “tempest,” tumult and “darkness” that overtook the Nephites at the Savior’s crucifixion. Was that their doing? Or was it God’s doing?

Was the Exodus’ “pillar of fire and smoke,” bloody water, darkness, earthquakes or plagues due to some super weapon? Or were these the forces of nature obeying the command of their creator?

Why, then, do we allow descriptions of idential latter-day calamities to suggest the cause is other than God-sent?

There is no hint of a role for man in Joseph Smith’s statement about latter-day destructions, “It is not the design of the Almighty to come upon the earth and crush it and grind it to powder.” 

The crux of this argument is the strikingly similar language used in the scriptures to describe both ancient catastrophes and those prophesied for the future. This logic is a vital key, axiomatic to understanding the scriptures and the fulfillment of prophecy that every Latter-day Saint should internalize: The calamities of the last days, prior to the Second Coming, will see a return of all the catastrophic types of destruction from the past, enumerated in the scriptures. As an example, compare the “miracles” of Exodus and Revelation for yourself.

Otherwise, why would God use the irresistible forces of nature to do his bidding in the past and not in the future, leaving that to the hand of man instead? Isn’t it more logical to assume that the striking similarities between ancient destructions and those prophesied for our future are an indication that they will be of the same nature, kind and source?

While it is true that “there will be wars and rumors of wars,” fought by man, according to Joseph Smith, the true agents of destruction will be the forces of nature, “signs in the heavens above and on the earth beneath, the sun turned into darkness and the moon to blood, earthquakes in divers places, the seas heaving beyond their bounds.”

Mormons were not immune to the distorted view of scripture induced by advanced technology and the atom bomb, but they should have been. Isn’t this what the scriptures mean when they urge us to reject any reliance on the “arm of flesh?”

We Saints have fallen prey to the delusions of our Christian brethren where interpretation of prophecy is concerned because we failed to heed the teachings of the modern prophets, from Joseph Smith to the present, and because we have failed to study the scriptures.

Perhaps it is time we returned to the proper perspective, rather than the distorted view induced by our myopic, egocentric modern views. Perhaps it is time we took man, his puny and fragile devices out of the equation - puny when compared to the forces of nature at God’s command - by recognizing that God alone will fulfill the promises made by the mouths of his holy prophets. Perhaps this should also remind us of just how widespread, devastating and earthshaking the catastrophes of the latter-days will be - far greater by many orders of magnitude than any man-made calamity - when they do come upon us.

Website

Videos

Protected: Deep Waters: Creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and creatio ex deo are all true doctrines

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

CAP Reports

Here is a help for LDS that doesn’t come from an LDS source. It is a Christian Ministry called the ChildCare Action Project (CAP) that reviews movies and rates them according to how much offensive material is in the movie.

Here is the link to the big list of movie reviews:

Childcare Action Project (CAP) Ministry Reports

Using CAP reports, a person can quickly make a judgment call of whether a movie is appropriate for children, before seeing it themselves. One of the keys to the reports is the Findings/Scoring graph, that consists of six thermometers representing Wanton Violence/Crime (W), Impudence/Hate (I), Sexual Immorality (S), Drugs/Alcohol (D), Offense to God (O), and Murder/Suicide (M). This, of course, spells WISDOM. To illustrate, let’s look at the CAP report for Meet the Robinsons, beginning with its Findings/Scoring graph:

Below the Findings/Scoring graph is a list of every questionable portrayal found in the movie. For example, for Meet the Robinsons, under the Wanton Violence/Crime category is listed:

theft

anger tantrum

identity fraud

slapstick violence throughout

character on fire

characters being attacked and eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex (snatched into its mouth but spit out later)

impalement through chest of robot emulating impalement gore

attack by “zombies”

This list continues point by point throughout each of the letters of the WISDOM graph. In addition to this extraordinary help in judging the merits of a film, each movie is assigned a new rating based upon the CAP scoring method. So, in this case, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA )assigned a rating of G to Meet the Robinsons whereas the CAP model assigned a rating of PG-G. Also, a CAPCon Alert signal is shown for each reviewed movie. This lets parents know at a glance “the relative amount of assaults on morality and decency in a film.” Meet the Robinsons received the following CAPCon Alert signal:

The CAP web site states: “We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family.” I agree with that assessment. The tools really are objective and no one else seems to be supplying this information. Not even the LDS. To see the latest reviews, click this graphic–>

I was planning on publishing this post awhile ago and I may be a bit too late. This ministry is having major problems with funding. Apparently, between 10 and 11 million people have used the service, but only four donors are coughing up money to keep it going and, unfortunately, it is not enough. It would be a shame to see it end. If it does die, I honestly do not think that the LDS can do a better job than this minister can, nor do I think anyone would volunteer to fill in his shoes. He seems to think that God guided him to establish the CAP ministry and I tend to agree.

Visit the web site and check it out. If you