Special Comet Holmes James M. McCanney Broadcast

James M. McCanney, M.S. (Physics), gave a two-hour long, commercial-free radio broadcast Monday night, November 26, at 10:00 p.m. to Midnight, Pacific Standard Time. He talked about Comet Holmes, which, in case you haven’t heard, is now twice the diameter of the Sun (the coma part of the comet, not the nucleus.) To hear the archived broadcast, visit this page:

Comet Holmes Sub Page

McCanney subscribes to the electric universe point of view and has published several books and scientific papers. He claims to be the originator of the Plasma Discharge Comet Model and has some interesting information about the electrical nature of the universe, solar system and more especially, comets. Comet Holmes pretty much, in my opinion, is the nail in the coffin of the standard Dirty Snowball Comet Model so what McCanney has to say helps to explain the “anomalous” flare up of Holmes.

As the faithful are to be looking for the signs of the times and as there will be great signs in the heavens, astronomy should be of interest to all LDS. If you have interest in the plasma model of the universe, have been following with interest the very large and very fast flare-up of Comet Holmes, or are just watching for the prophesied signs, you may want to listen to the above program.

Next Plasma Theology article: The hollow earth theory, the plasma model and Mormon theology

Previous Plasma Theology article: Introducing another plasma theologue

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Deep Waters: Lehi’s model of the universe

I thought that I would do something new with this post. I will quote scriptures, ask questions about them and give answers according to my understanding. Hopefully, you will be able to follow my logic. 2 Nephi 2: 5-14 is my scriptural text. (I am publishing this article as a result of three comments I posted on another blog, which were met with confusion and disbelief. You may read the comments here: 1, 2 & 3.)

1) And the law is given unto men. (2 Ne. 2: 5)

1) Q–What law? A-The law that is given unto men (not necessarily the one that is received by them.) Q–Given by whom? A-“The law which the Holy One hath given.” (See 2 Ne. 2: 10.)

2) And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. (2 Ne. 2: 5)

2) Q–What does Lehi mean by “flesh?” A-He means mortality, or any mortal creation. Q–What does Lehi mean by “justified?” A-He means guiltless. Q–From what are men cut off? A-From the presence of the Lord (see v. 8), from that which is good (see v. 5), from things pertaining to righteousness (see Alma 12: 16, etc.)

3) Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. (2 Ne. 2: 5)

3) Q–What is the temporal law? A-The laws of physics given by God to all mortal creations, which ultimately lead to the physical death of all flesh. Q–What is the spiritual law? A-The spiritual laws of God, which ultimately lead to the spiritual death of all flesh. Q–What does it mean to be cut off by the temporal law? A-To die a physical death (separation of the spirit body from the physical body), which, if not overcome, results in us becoming devils and being cast into outer darkness. (See 2 Ne. 9: 9.) Q–What does it mean to “perish from that which is good” by the spiritual law? A-To become devils and be expelled into outer darkness (separation from the presence of God.) In other words, the end result of both the temporal and spiritual law, if not overcome, is the second death: expulsion into outer darkness.

4) Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. (2 Ne. 2: 6)

4) Q–What does “redemption cometh in…the Holy Messiah” mean? A-It means the resurrection from the dead, which is free and requires nothing of us to receive it. (It is unconditional.) Q–What does “redemption cometh…through the Holy Messiah” mean? A-It means forgiveness of sin, which is given on condition of repentance. Q–How is the Holy Messiah full of grace? A-He is full of grace in that he forgives sin. Q–How is the Holy Messiah full of truth? A-He is full of truth in that he causes the resurrection to happen. Q–Who is the Holy Messiah? A-He is Jesus Christ.

5) Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. (2 Ne. 2: 7)

5) Q–What are “the ends of the law?” Why does Lehi say “ends” plural and not “end” singular? A-The expression “ends of the law” refers to the bounds (D&C 88: 38 ) or limits of the law, the law itself proceeding “forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space” (D&C 88: 12) and being in the shape of a sphere (D&C 93: 30). There is not one “end” of the law, only “ends” because every point from the center of the sphere to the perimeter in any direction is one of the infinite “ends of the law.” The law, being the power of God, governs, gives light and gives life to the entire created universe which resides within its bounds, or “ends,” God himself being “in the midst of all things” (D&C 88:13) or, in other words, residing in the center of the sphere (the most holy place or the holy of holies.) Q–What does Lehi mean by “answer the ends of the law?” A-He means the answer or solution to the problem at hand, namely, that no flesh is justified by the law, therefore, all flesh must inevitably be expelled from, or placed outside of, the law (the sphere), in other words, they must be removed to “the ends of the law.” At the ends of the law is where the lake of fire and brimstone is located, and beyond that is outer darkness. As the sphere is a sphere of light, outside of that sphere is darkness, hence the name, “outer darkness,” in contrast or opposition to the sphere of inner light. The question is, essentially, “What can be done for all these creatures that they may not have to return (D&C 88: 32) to the lake of fire and brimstone and outer darkness from whence they originally came? How can they remain in the kingdom of light (glory) which God has created?” The answer is the atonement of Jesus Christ. Q–What happens to those who do not “have a broken heart and a contrite spirit,” unto whom the ends of the law cannot be answered? A-They return to the lake of fire and brimstone, to be delivered to the darkness which exists outside of the sphere of light. This is known as the second death.

6) Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. (2 Ne. 2: 8 )

7) Wherefore, he is the first fruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved. (2 Ne. 2: 9)

8 ) And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. (2 Ne. 2: 10)

9) Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. (2 Ne. 2: 10-11)

9) Q–What are “the ends of the atonement?” A-The bounds or limits of the atonement, the scope of which exactly conforms to the bounds and limits of the law, the course of the Lord being “one eternal round” and thus a sphere, like the law. Q–What does Lehi mean by “answer the ends of the atonement?” A-He means the answer or solution to the problem at hand, namely, how to answer the question, “What is to be done to those unrepentant souls who are not claimed by the atonement?” Lehi explains that “the ends of the law” will “answer the ends of the atonement.” In other words, these people will be delivered to the ends of the law (the lake of fire and brimstone) and beyond it to outer darkness. Q–What is the punishment that is affixed to the ends of the law? A-The casting of these souls into the lake of fire and brimstone and outer darkness. Q–What is the happiness that is affixed that is opposite to the punishment that is affixed to the ends of the law? A-It is the innermost location of the light sphere, the most holy place or the holy of holies, where God resides in the midst of his creations (the created universe.) It is the central location of the light sphere, being opposite in all ways to the outermost location, (the ends and outer darkness.) Q–Does removing the comma after “for it must needs be” change the meaning of the phrase, “for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things”? A-Yes. Q–What is a plainer translation of the phrase with the comma? A-“Because it needs to be this way, so that there is an opposition in all things.” Q–What is a plainer translation of the phrase without the comma? A-“Because there needs to be an opposition in all things.” Q–What is the difference between the two phrases, with comma and without comma? A-The phrase with the comma is explaining that the law necessarily is set up so that there is an opposition in all things, in other words, that the law itself is creating the necessary opposition in all things, whereas the phrase without the comma is explaining that an opposition in all things is necessary. (This is where most LDS stumble in the correct interpretation of this scripture. They read it as if there were no comma and thus miss the true meaning of Lehi’s words.)

10) If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. (2 Ne. 2: 11)

10) Q–What does the phrase “if not so” mean? If what is not so? A-If the law was not so. In other words, if the law were not set up to create the opposition in all things (outer darkness-inner light) there would be no opposition in all things. Lehi is explaining that the opposition in all things was created by God. It does not exist naturally. Q–What are the opposite conditions that could not be brought to pass if the law did not create an opposition in all things? A-Righteousness-wickedness; holiness-misery; good-bad.

11) Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. (2 Ne. 2: 11)

11) Q–What does Lehi mean when he says, “Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one?” A-He means that if you take away the creative act of God, in creating the opposition in all things through the law, which is his light and power, the natural state of things is to be “a compound in one,” both spirit and element being joined together as if they were one single substance. This is the state of things as they existed prior to creation. This is the state of things as they exist now in outer darkness, which is outside of the kingdom of God, or the created universe (the sphere of light). This is the state that we were in before God brought us into existence, or better stated, into a state of awareness of our existence, before he split our “compound in one” substance into two opposite materials: spirit matter (that which acts) and element or physical matter (that which is acted upon). Q–What is “it” in the phrase “if it should be one body?” A-It is the compound in one substance. Q–Why does Lehi refer to the “compound in one” substance as being “one body?” A-Two reasons: 1st, to contrast it to our own dual natures, as we have both a spirit body and a physical body and, 2nd, to contrast it to our current state of individuality. The compound in one substance literally was as one body, or a single mass of everything that is currently in the sphere of light, which is the kingdom of God. There was no individuality, nor even awareness of individuals, nor of anything else. Everything was the same as everything else, thus, without anything to contrast, it all was as a single body, all of it unaware that it even existed. Q–Why does Lehi state that “it must needs remain as dead” when later on he says, “having no life neither death?” Is this a contradiction? A-There is no contradiction. Lehi is explaining that the one body compound in one substance was useless in its compound in one state. It was good for nothing. It served no purpose. It was as dead, meaning it was like a dead thing, totally incapable of usefulness as it was not even aware of its own existence. It was literally “in the dark” as to any possibilities for expansion and progression. It had nothing to contrast anything else with, as there was no light to contrast with its darkness, no separate individuals to contrast with its singular, combined substance. With such material, nothing can be accomplished, not life, not death, etc.

12) Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. (2 Ne. 2: 12)

13) Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. (2 Ne. 2: 12)

12-13) Q–What is the meaning of Lehi’s words as written in verse 12? A-He is saying that if God had created the one body, compound in one substance, it would have been created for nothing, having no utility or serving no useful purpose, at all. Since God cannot create anything without giving it a purpose, a use, had he created such stuff, he would have ceased to be God. Lehi is attempting to explain that as God has not ceased to be God and as this stuff did exist prior to creation and still exists (as this is the material that God uses to expand his kingdom), then this substance is stuff in its natural, untouched or un-created state, that it is co-existent with God and co-eternal, but his complete opposite. (He has all power, it has no power, etc.)

14) And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

15) If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

16) And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

17) And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

18 ) And if these things are not there is no God. (2 Ne. 2: 13)

14) Q–Why does Lehi begin with the phrase, “And if ye shall say there is no law?” A-Because the opposition in all things is created by the law. Everything hinges on the existence of the law. With the existence of the law, you can then have sin, righteousness, happiness, punishment and misery, in other words, the opposition in all things. If there is no opposition in all things, it means there is no law given by God and if there is no law given by God, then there is no God, as the law is his power.

19) And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

19) Q–What does Lehi mean when he says that “all things must have vanished away” if there is no God? A-He means that God is holding all of creation together, in its created state, by his own power. If God ever loses his power (his honor, see D&C 29: 36), all created things will revert back to their previous, uncreated, one body, compound in one state. In fact, if any of the gods and goddesses (god-dom) ever cease to be a god or goddess, the same result occurs everywhere. This is why Lucifer necessarily demanded the honor of God in his pre-mortal bid to conquer the universe, so that the universe would not revert to its previous state. (See
Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?)

20) And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. (2 Ne. 2: 14)

20) Q–Lehi says that God created all things. Does that not include the compound in one substance? A-God created all things that are created and all things that are created have purpose. The compound in one substance has no purpose and is in the natural, un-created state. God did not create it. Q–What are the things to act and what are the things to be acted upon? A-When God split the compound in one substance into two materials, one was the fire or spirit, which was given the purpose (by God) to move on its own (that which acts) and the other was the brimstone, or physical element, which was given the purpose (by God) to be moved (that which is acted upon.) The physical element does not move on its own, it must be acted upon, or pushed around, by the spirit matter. This is why living things move around (because the spirit bodies move the physical bodies) but when the living things die, which means that the spirit bodies leave the physical bodies, the physical bodies just lay there, motionless, unless acted upon by other, authorized spirit matter. (Devils can possess living souls, with permission, or power granted, of the living souls, but once a person dies, devils are not authorized to possess the physical body of that dead individual. In other words, the free agent physical body won’t allow itself to be moved by devils, only by spirits whose authority it, the physical body, recognizes.) Both spirit and element are given agency (D&C 93: 31) by God from the get-go. The spirit moves of its own volition and the element moves not, or allows itself to be pushed around, of its own volition. As the Lord has said, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93: 30).” Both truth and intelligence (physical element and spirit matter) act for themselves, but truth (element) acts by allowing itself to be pushed around, or acted upon, while intelligence (spirit) acts by doing the pushing. The creation of the opposition in all things happens at the ends of the law, where the lake of fire (spirit) and brimstone (element) burns. If you could float just above the ends or boundary of the light sphere, so that your head pointed to the center of the light sphere and your feet pointed to the edge or ends of the sphere (the ends of the law), you being within the sphere, the ends of the law would appear to be a lake of fire and brimstone. This is the plasma bow shock that divides the outer darkness from the inner light. It is the lake of fire and brimstone that is where the compound in one substance is being converted, or split, into spirit (fire) and element (brimstone.) The flame of this lake “ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end” (2 Ne. 9: 16). The reason is that the lake is in the shape of a sphere, being at the ends of the law, and if you could follow it with your eye, although the sphere is inconceivably big, you would eventually see it curve upward. Also, as the creative act is continual, meaning that more compound in one substance is being split into spirit and element, the sphere is constantly expanding. (See Moses 1: 4, “my works are without end.”)

Final Question–What does this tell us about our own natures? A-It shows us why God is so obsessed with getting everything resurrected with a physical body. The physical aspect is as much a part of our original, un-split, compound in one natures as is the spiritual aspect. We cannot feel complete without it. This is why only spirit and element, inseparably connected, can receive a fulness of joy (D&C 93: 33-34). This is one of the reasons why Satan is miserable forever. The lack of a physical body creates a void. This is why Jacob explained that we would all become devils if there were no resurrection (2 Ne. 9: 9). If there were no resurrection, there would be no hope of ever getting that missing part of us back. As hope is a part of faith, if we lose all hope, we lose all faith, and Satan then would obtain all power over us and we would become devils just like him, as he also has no hope nor faith. This is why the resurrection has so much emphasis in the scriptures.

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

Previous Deep Waters article: Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Introducing another LDS plasma theologue

I am not the only LDS on the planet who subscribes to the plasma model of the Universe. There is another: Anthony E. Larson. Larson has written a number of books about plasma theology. Using plasma mythology and plasma cosmology he has developed a body of interpretative keys to understanding prophecy in the standard works. His web site is the following:

www.MormonProphecy.com

Larson has written three books which he calls his prophecy trilogy (And The Moon Shall Turn To Blood, And The Earth Shall Reel To And Fro and And There Shall Be A New Heaven And A New Earth), as well as a book that takes as its subject John’s Book of Revelation (The Plainest Book: Revelation.) He has self-published a periodical called Eschatus, the first issue of which can be read free; the rest must be purchased. Other freebies include a 27-minute DVD introduction into plasma theology (you have to pay $2 shipping and handling), a series of articles published in Desert Saints Magazine which can be downloaded in .pdf format, and a day-long symposium, with a Power Point presentation, etc., in which he asks only that his expenses are paid (airfare to the location and back again.) All of this material is available on his web site.

There is also a free, two-hour long podcast interview that Larson did on the Mormon Miscellaneous Worldwide Talk Show on March 26th, 2007. Click the following link to listen to it:

Prophecy: Scenarios of the End Times

I stumbled upon Larson’s web site one day while researching further information on plasma mythology and plasma cosmology. At the time, Larson had a forum hosted by Yahoo Groups, the various posts of which I began reading daily. There were not a whole lot of people in the forum, but he was both a moderator and a poster, so I was able to get a fairly good understanding of where he was coming from, as far as his interpretative keys. That forum, unfortunately, was disbanded for some reason (perhaps because of the very few people who actually participated in its discussion.) Nevertheless, I, at least, was exposed to it sufficiently to make a determination concerning the information that Larson was giving.

My personal assessment is that Larson’s research is very worthy of study by the LDS and may be helpful in the proper interpretation of prophecy. None of the things that I read in his now-defunct forum, nor those found in the free downloadable material on his web site, have contradicted either the scriptures or plasma research, nor have they triggered a “spiritual red flag” response. By that I mean that the Holy Ghost has not indicated to me that his research and conclusions are false. Nor has the Holy Ghost told me that they are true, nevertheless, Larson is extremely well read and well-grounded in plasma mythology (much more than myself) and has researched this material extensively and, according to the knowledge I have of plasma science and plasma mythology, and also of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Larson’s findings throw further light upon the gospel and upon prophecy because he is able to connect both very well to plasma mythology archetypes (the keys) so that prophecy becomes easily understandable, even plain.

Next Plasma Theology article: Special Comet Holmes James M. McCanney Broadcast

Previous Plasma Theology article: The plasma aspects of the First Vision and Moroni’s visit

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The prophetic counsel against having kings (rulers)

King Nephi didn’t want the people to have a king (a ruler)
From the time Lehi and his family left Jerusalem down to the time that Nephi and company split from Laman and Lemuel and company in the promised land, the Lehites had lived in tribal anarchy using the law of Moses as the tribal, customary law.

And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power. (2 Ne. 5: 18 )

The Nephites, though, sought to change that tribal anarchy into a monarchy and despite his protests, he hearkened unto the voice of the people and became their first king. In fact, when he was about to die, he anointed another king in his stead, too, thus perpetuating the reign of Nephite kings among the people.

Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings. The people having loved Nephi exceedingly, he having been a great protector for them, having wielded the sword of Laban in their defence, and having labored in all his days for their welfare-wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would. And it came to pass that Nephi died. (Jacob 1: 9-12)

Alma didn’t want the people to have a king (a ruler)
During the reign of the Nephite kings Noah, Limhi and Mosiah and the lamanitish king Laman, Alma and his people (see The Anarchy of Alma) escaped (see Mosiah 18 ) from king Noah and founded the city of Helam, in the land of Helam, where they lived in tribal anarchy using the law of Moses as the customary, tribal law. Like the people of the first king Nephi, Alma’s people wanted a king to rule over them, and they asked him to become their king. Again like the first king Nephi, Alma counseled against having kings. Remarkably, these people actually listened to his counsel and remained in anarchy, unlike their ancestors.

And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people. But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king. Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king. But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore repentance; nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, and has made me an instrument in his hands in bringing so many of you to a knowledge of his truth. Nevertheless, in this I do not glory, for I am unworthy to glory of myself. And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by king Noah, and have been in bondage to him and his priests, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity. And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments. Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them. (Mosiah 23: 6-15)

King Mosiah didn’t want the people to have a king (a ruler)
The Nephite monarchy lasted until king Mosiah, who proposed that monarchies be done away in favor of a popularly elected governmental system of higher and lower judges, who would not legislate, judge and execute like kings, but merely serve as adjudicators using the law of Moses.

And I command you to do these things in the fear of the Lord; and I command you to do these things, and that ye have no king; that if these people commit sins and iniquities they shall be answered upon their own heads. (Mosiah 29: 30)

The system of judicial government, set up by Mosiah, lasted until 3 Nephi 7, when it was dissolved and the people naturally fell back into tribal anarchy, each tribe having their own set of laws and tribal chiefs and leaders, with inter-tribal agreements securing the peace between tribes. From this point on to the end of the Nephite civilization, the Book of Mormon is silent concerning any other form of government established among the people. For all we know, anarchy remained to the end, a period of over 300 years. (See 300 + years of Nephite anarchy.)

Jared and his brother didn’t want the people to have a king (a ruler)
From the time that Jared, his brother and their tribes left the Tower of Babel to the time that they were nearing death in the promised land, the Jaredite tribes lived in tribal anarchy, using whatever customary laws they had among them. However, the last thing asked of them by their people was that they anoint a king for them, which they reluctantly did, after protesting to the people.

And it came to pass that the people desired of them that they should anoint one of their sons to be a king over them. And now behold, this was grievous unto them. And the brother of Jared said unto them: Surely this thing leadeth into captivity. But Jared said unto his brother: Suffer them that they may have a king. And therefore he said unto them: Choose ye out from among our sons a king, even whom ye will. And it came to pass that they chose even the firstborn of the brother of Jared; and his name was Pagag. And it came to pass that he refused and would not be their king. And the people would that his father should constrain him, but his father would not; and he commanded them that they should constrain no man to be their king. And it came to pass that they chose all the brothers of Pagag, and they would not. And it came to pass that neither would the sons of Jared, even all save it were one; and Orihah was anointed to be king over the people. (Ether 6: 22-27)

From king Orihah to the end of the Jaredite civilization, they remained under monarchies.

The Lord doesn’t want the people to have a king (a ruler)
In a couple of the revelations given to Joseph Smith, Jun., the Lord prophesies that in time there will be no kings, rulers or laws, at all, only his laws, with him as our king.

But, verily I say unto you that in time ye shall have no king nor ruler, for I will be your king and watch over you. Wherefore, hear my voice and follow me, and you shall be a free people, and ye shall have no laws but my laws when I come, for I am your lawgiver, and what can stay my hand? (D&C 38: 21-22)

And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins. For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day. And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation. For the Lord shall be in their midst, and his glory shall be upon them, and he will be their king and their lawgiver. (D&C 45: 56-59)

Samuel didn’t want the people to have a king
Moving on to the Bible, from the time the Israelites were led from Egypt by Moses to their promised land, down to the time of the prophet Samuel, they lived in tribal anarchy, using the law of Moses as the customary, tribal law.

In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21: 25)

Then, as always, the people wanted a king and asked Samuel to anoint one. He protested and explained to them the horrors a human king would bring them, but they still wanted one and he ended up anointing Saul. From that point on the Israelites always had kings or other rulers ruling over them.

And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city. (1 Samuel 8: 5-22)

And thus we see that whenever faced with the choice of establishing a state government of rulers (kings) or remaining in tribal anarchy, the prophets among the people always counseled the people to remain in anarchy.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: A basic right denied

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: 300 + years of Nephite anarchy

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

300 + years of Nephite anarchy

3 Nephi chapter 7 records the destruction of the Nephite popularly-elected, judicial system of government based upon the law of Moses and the subsequent tribal anarchies that formed in its stead. (See Book of Mormon Anarchy.) From page one of the Book of Mormon, to chapter 7 of 3 Nephi, Mormon is emphatic in recording the governmental proceedings of the people of Nephi. But after 3 Nephi 7, neither Mormon nor his son Moroni ever mention another system of government among the Nephites.

The reason?

Because they lived in anarchy.

One of the keys to understanding the Nephite concept of government, as taught to them by their prophets, is the repeated association of freedom and liberty and not esteeming one man above another with anarchy, while associating captivity and bondage with rulers and kings–the State (government.) This association was started by Alma, continued with Mosiah and even mentioned by Moroni to have been expressed by the brother of Jared: “Surely this thing leadeth into captivity.” (See Ether 6: 23.)

After the Savior visited the Nephites, things changed drastically. Nevertheless, the record is very brief in describing the changes. 4 Nephi is our only glimpse into life during those times, but Mormon was gracious enough to at least tell us the following:

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. (4 Nephi 1: 3)

“They were all made free,” says Mormon. As I understand the scriptures, according to the associations given in the Book of Mormon, this is referring to anarchy. This particular anarchy, unlike the anarchy of Alma, was not based upon the law of Moses, but upon the law of Christ. (See 4 Nephi 1: 12.) Whereas the people of Alma, who used the law of Moses, “did multiply and prosper exceedingly” (Mosiah 23: 20), the later Nephites, who used the law of Christ, “did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people” (4 Nephi 1: 10). Thus, they had a more excellent anarchy, as the tribal, customary laws they used were the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

Three types of Book of Mormon anarchies

The Book of Mormon records three instances of anarchy, each one peaceful.

The lowest form of anarchy, recorded in 3 Nephi 7 was one in which each tribe made its own laws. (See 3 Nephi 7: 11, 14.) In other words, instead of using the law of Moses as their tribal, customary law, they scrapped that and made their own laws. This is why Mormon lamented the destruction of the government. The judicial, State government used the law of Moses, which was the law given by God to this people. When the State government was destroyed, the people rejected the law of God (the law of Moses) and established their own laws in tribal anarchy. So, it wasn’t so much the destruction of the government that was iniquitous, as it was the rejection of the law of Moses and substitution of that God-given law with inferior laws of man. Nevertheless, despite inferior laws of man in tribal anarchy, Mormon admits that these iniquitous people had peace.

The second or middle form of anarchy is Alma’s anarchy, established using the law of Moses. The account of this anarchy is found in Mosiah 23. (See The Anarchy of Alma.)

The third or highest form of anarchy is recorded in 4 Nephi and is based upon the celestial law, or law of Christ.

No matter which form of anarchy, though, was recorded by Mormon, all of them were peaceful and ordered societies, contrary to what statists teach. Counting all three anarchies, the cumulative time spent by the Nephites in anarchy was at least 300 years.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: The prophetic counsel against having kings (rulers)

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: The Anarchy of Alma

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Anarchy of Alma

One of the more remarkable accounts of scriptural anarchy is found in the Book of Mormon, among Alma and the people of the Lord. Mosiah 18 records the conversion of these people to the Lord and their subsequent escape from the persecutions of king Noah. Then the record leaves off their account to talk about other things. Later, in Mosiah 23 and 24 we are told what happened to them.

After traveling eight days, Alma and his people arrive at a nice piece of real estate and start working the land to sustain themselves, building edifices and doing other industrious things. Then, they decide that they want Alma to be their king. Just like the other prophets who came before him and who also had a people living in anarchy, desirous to establish a state government, Alma protests and explains why this is a bad idea.

But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king. Nevertheless, if it were possible that ye could always have just men to be your kings it would be well for you to have a king. But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore repentance; nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, and has made me an instrument in his hands in bringing so many of you to a knowledge of his truth. Nevertheless, in this I do not glory, for I am unworthy to glory of myself. And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by king Noah, and have been in bondage to him and his priests, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity. And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments. (Mosiah 23: 7-13)

Alma’s speech is remarkable in several ways. First, he calls on the words of the Lord himself to prove his point: “Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another.” Whether this is new Nephite scripture or old scripture written upon the plates of Brass and not had in our Old Testament, no one knows, but Alma appeals to it as authoritative and one of the scriptural proofs he uses to show why having a king is wrong.

Second, Alma states categorically that if it were possible to always have just men be kings, then the people should have kings. This concept would be repeated by king Mosiah later when explaining why the Nephite monarchy should be changed into a judicial government. But what other prophets have stated such a thing? This appears to be a new concept initiated by Alma and, since Alma and his people later came into contact with Mosiah, one that perhaps influenced Mosiah’s own opinion, since he apparently echoes Alma’s words here.

Third, this is the first instance of the Nephite concept of bondage and captivity being associated with a State, and liberty and freedom being associated with anarchy. This theme will permeate the rest of the book.

Fourth, the anarchic concept of not trusting those in authority is introduced. In the case of men who would be kings or rulers in governmental positions, the counsel is “trust no man to be a king over you.” There are no qualifiers to this statement. In the case of men who would be teachers or ministers of religion, the counsel is “trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister,” with one qualifying exception, “except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.” Nevertheless, the standing orders are to “trust no one.”

Fifth, Alma exhorts his people to “remember the iniquity of king Noah.” In other words, he directs them to look at the potential badness of the State, not its potential goodness. The emphasis is not that the State is a necessary evil, but that it is an evil we should avoid, if at all possible.

Sixth, Alma’s speech actually has the effect of causing the people to change their minds! Instead of insisting on a king, they realize the wisdom of Alma’s words and remain in anarchy. This never happened with Samuel’s people, nor with Nephi’s, nor with the brother of Jared’s, so these people were truly enlightened by the Lord.

Contrary to popular belief, the anarchy of Alma and the people of the Lord did not result in chaos and terror. It did not result in high crimes, contention and confusion. The only comment that Mormon makes of the anarchy of Alma is the following:

And it came to pass that they began to prosper exceedingly in the land; and they called the land Helam. And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam. (Mosiah 23: 19-20)

Prosperity! Exceeding prosperity! That was the result of their anarchy. Oh, how the State propaganda machine must hate the Book of Mormon!…

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: 300 + years of Nephite anarchy

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Abraham Lincoln

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Abraham Lincoln

If you go to lds.org and do a search among the general conference addresses using “Lincoln” as the term, you will come up with 64 articles. Of these articles, not a single one speaks negatively of him. The GA’s are not only fond of quoting one of his statements or making an example of his life, but also of extolling his virtues, essentially putting him on a pedestal. Here are some quotes to illustrate this point:

Richard C. Edgley said that Lincoln “freed the slaves.” Paul H. Dunn considered Lincoln one of the “great leaders.” Devere Harris implied that Lincoln was both “great” and had reached “the pinnacle of performance.” Royden G. Derrick said, “We revere Abraham Lincoln because of his commitment to a principle in which he strongly believed.” He also stated that he was a “patriot.” Sterling W. Sill called Lincoln “our great Civil War president.” David B. Haight implied Lincoln, known as “Honest Abe,” evidenced “public virtue.” He implied that Lincoln rose “above self-interest” and acted “in the public interest with wisdom and courage.” Joseph B. Wirthlin said that Lincoln was “one of the greatest and most eloquent presidents of the United States.” James E. Faust believed Lincoln had “special gifts” and listed him along with Moses and Leonardo da Vinci. Mark E. Petersen called Lincoln a “man of God.” He also called him “the great emancipator.” Dallin H. Oaks called Lincoln “educated,” serviceable,” and that his “use of a limited amount of information” was “wise and inspired.” Neal A. Maxwell said that Lincoln provided “spiritual leadership.” Jeffrey R. Holland called Lincoln “one of the most gifted leaders ever to strive to hold a nation together.” Marvin J. Ashton called him “the great American leader Abraham Lincoln.” Marion G. Romney said that Lincoln “demonstrated his great integrity” in leaving a sentence in his ‘The House Divided Against Itself’ speech despite knowing it would probably mean losing the Senate seat. He said that Lincoln “had the integrity to act in harmony with his convictions” despite being “ambitious” and desirous of the presidency. His integrity meant “defeat in his race for the Senate,” but, Romney said, “fortunately for the country” it later made him president. He then said, “How glorious…it would be if all of us possessed the integrity of…an Abraham Lincoln.” Thomas S. Monson called Lincoln “the revered Abraham Lincoln.” Spencer W. Kimball said that Lincoln “achieved the highest success attainable in life and undying fame to the end of time.” Gordon B. Hinckley, talking of Lincoln, said that there was “true greatness to the man” and that he laced the nation “together ‘with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God’ gave him to see the right.” Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking of the debunking of the story of “Abraham Lincoln’s walking a great distance to return a small coin to its rightful owner,” stated that “clever debunkers in their unrighteous zeal have destroyed faith in such honesty.”

One of the debunkers of the myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln is Thomas J. DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo has written, so far, two books on Lincoln (The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe) and published a score of articles about him, a list of which are found here and here. You can also listen to an audio interview he recorded here. I’m also including a videotaped speech of DiLorenzo entitled, “Why Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln,” which can be viewed in six parts:

DiLorenzo is not alone in making these claims. There are other researchers who are bringing Lincoln facts to light, such as Sam Dickson, who wrote an article entitled, Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln. (These two men fulfil the law of witnesses: in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.) Nevertheless, I will focus on DiLorenzo’s articles and research.

I am not convinced that DiLorenzo’s, Dickson’s and other’s zeal in debunking Lincoln myths is unrighteous. Eventually all truth is to be revealed, all hidden, secret things are to be uncovered and all lies exposed as falsehoods. We LDS should applaud all efforts that correct past errors, including any erroneous view of Lincoln’s actions.

Although Lincoln undoubtedly believed he was in the right, that alone is not enough to revere him, despite what Elder Derrick said above. There have been plenty of tyrants and dictators who also firmly believed in their own principles. What is important is that the actions of a man correspond to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ as we know it. It is the gospel by which we measure all things.

Many of the GAs quote Lincoln, as he said many great and memorable things, but it is best to keep in mind that Lincoln was a politician. Politicians attempt to say the things that their audience want to hear. In the case of Lincoln, he did this masterfully. This is why both Christian and atheist alike claim Lincoln as their own. So, we cannot take a politician merely at his word, we must examine his actions to determine the real value of the man. And we must compare those actions with the gospel. As Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

In examining his actions, it is important to keep in mind the opposite principles of free agency and coercion, one being of God, the other satanic. In the pre-mortal council, some spirits of Heavenly Father did not wish to follow Christ. They didn’t want to be a part of that “union.” Our heavenly house was divided against itself. Did Heavenly Father force Lucifer and his followers to remain in heaven? Were they forced to accept Jesus? Or did he freely allow them to cut themselves off and leave, which is the right of secession? As a result of 1/3 of these spirits leaving, did the government of God dissolve? Or does it still exist? Keep this in mind when you ponder on the fact that Lincoln “saved the union” (at gunpoint) and “saved the Constitution” (by denying the right of secession and by forcing the South to submit to it, upon pain of death, imprisonment and/or loss of property.)

Now, here is a summary of DiLorenzo’s points on the unlawful and immoral acts of Lincoln:

• Lincoln saved the union geographically, but destroyed it philosophically
• He invaded the southern states without consulting Congress (unconstitutional)
• He declared martial law (unconstitutional)
• He blockaded southern ports without declaring war (unconstitutional)
• He suspended the writ of habeas corpus (unconstitutional)
• He imprisoned without trial some 13 northern citizens
• He arrested and imprisoned newspaper publishers who were critical of him
• He censored all telegraph communications
• He nationalized the railroads
• He created three new states (Kansas, Nevada and West Virginia) without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to rig the 1864 elections and give himself more electoral votes
• He had soldiers interfere with the elections in the north (they used colored ballots, like a blue ballot was republican, a red ballot was a democrat, and if you saw someone with a wrong color the soldiers would not let them vote) using bayonets to rig the election
• His amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody at the time as legal
• He deported congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio (who eventually ended up in Canada,) breaking his door down in the middle of the night using Federal soldiers without a warrant and dragged him off to military prison (this happened to 13,000 people, too)
• Vallandigham spoke of the real reason Lincoln was doing these things: “The real purpose of these acts was national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation and strong government, no more state lines, no more state governments, and a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism.” Shortly after saying this, Valandegan was deported.

Some of the northern war crimes committed include:

• Some 50,000 southern civilians were killed by the Federal army
• 1 out of 4 southern white men between 20 and 40 years of age were killed
• Randolph, Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi were burned to the ground as was Atlanta
• When Atlanta was burned, 90% of the structures were burned to the ground and then after they were all burned out, winter was coming on, and Sherman evicted the remaining residents from their homes, the countryside having no food in it

The idolatrous worship of Abraham Lincoln is an obstacle to the transition to anarchy. As long as LDS look upon him as a national hero, even a man of God, they will always be conditioned to look upon the State as a good thing. The purpose of this post is to cast additional light upon the Lincolnite sacred cow so that LDS can more clearly see and decide for themselves if Lincoln is worthy of their adoration and if he was the champion of liberty that we’ve all been taught he was (in our government schools.)

The South has always vilified Lincoln, while the northerners and LDS have always deified him. Maybe it is time we LDS re-examined our viewpoint, based upon this new research, to determine whether we are the ones in error.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: The Anarchy of Alma

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Is anarchism compatible with D&C 134?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The faith of God, part one

One day at work, years ago, I got to talking to a co-worker on our lunch break and he shared with me the thought that God had no faith. He was a Buddhist monk and I let him talk the whole time, as he had obviously given it much thought. Basically, he said that since God was omniscient, that he had no faith, for once you knew something, you had faith no longer. We mortals could have faith, as we don’t know all things, but since God knows everything, he can’t have any faith.

So, now, dear reader, I ask you, was this monk correct? Has God no faith since he knows all things? Please don’t just respond, “Yes, he does have faith” or “No, he doesn’t have faith,” but also give the reasoning you’ve used to come to this conclusion. If you answer that he has faith, a secondary question would be, “Did God create all things through his knowledge, or through his faith?”

Next Faith of God article: The faith of God, part two

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Strong drinks, mild drinks, hot drinks, wine, etc.

 

Noah Webster published the first edition of his dictionary in 1828. It was the very first American dictionary. Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants (the Word of Wisdom) was revealed in 1838, so Webster’s 1828 dictionary was the one in use when the Word of Wisdom was given. It may be useful to look at his 1828 definitions when deciding on the meaning of “strong drinks,” “mild drinks,” “hot drinks” and “wine.” (Yes, yes, I know that hot drinks have already been defined as tea and coffee by the First Presidency, but look this over anyway. You might find it interesting.)

HOT, a.

1. Having sensible heat; opposed to cold; as a hot stove or fire; a hot cloth; hot liquors. Hot expresses more than warm.

2. Ardent in temper; easily excited or exasperated; vehement. Achilles is impatient, hot and revengeful.

3. Violent; furious; as a hot engagement or assault.

4. Eager; animated; brisk; keen; as a hot pursuit, or a person hot in a pursuit.

5. Lustful; lewd.

6. Acrid; biting; stimulating; pungent; as hot as mustard or pepper.

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

MILD, a. [The primary sense is soft or smooth, L. mollis, Eng. mellow.]

1. Soft; gently and pleasantly affecting the senses; not violent; as a mild air; a mild sun; a mild temperature; a mild light. The rosy morn resigns her light And milder glory to the noon. And with a milder gleam refreshed the sight.

2. Not acrid, pungent, corrosive or drastic; operating gently; not acrimonious; demulcent; mollifying; lenitive; assuasive; as a mild liquor; a mild cataplasm; a mild cathartic or emetic.

3. Tender and gentle in temper or disposition; kind; compassionate; merciful; clement; indulgent; not severe or cruel. It teaches us to adore him as a mild and merciful Being.

4. Not fierce, rough or angry; as mild words.

5. Placid; not fierce; not stern; not frowning; as a mild look or aspect.

6. Not sharp, tart, sour or bitter; moderately sweet or pleasant to the taste; as mild fruit.

7. Calm; tranquil. When passion subsides the temper becomes mild.

8. Moderate; not violent or intense; as a mild heat.

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

STRONG, a. [G., L. The sense of the radical word is to stretch, strain, draw, and probably from the root of stretch and reach.]

1. Having physical active power, or great physical power; having the power of exerting great bodily force; vigorous. A patient is recovering from sickness, but is not yet strong enough to walk. A strong man will lift twice his own weight. That our oxen may be strong to labor. Psalm 144. Orses the strong to greater strength must yield.

2. Having physical passive power; having ability to bear or endure; firm; solid; as a constitution strong enough to bear the fatigues of a campaign.

3. Well fortified; able to sustain attacks; not easily subdued or taken; as a strong fortress or town.

4. Having great military or naval force; powerful; as a strong army or fleet; a strong nation; a nation strong at sea.

5. Having great wealth, means or resources; as a strong house or company of merchants.

6. Moving with rapidity; violent; forcible; impetuous; as a strong current of water or wind. The wind was strong from the northeast. We had a strong tide against us.

7. Hale; sound; robust; as a strong constitution.

8. Powerful; forcible; cogent; adapted to make a deep or effectual impression on the mind or imagination; as a strong argument; strong reasons; strong evidence; a strong example or instance. He used strong language.

9. Arden; eager; zealous; earnestly engaged; as a strong partisan; a strong whig or tory. Her mother, ever strong against that match–

10. Having virtues of great efficacy; or having a particular quality in a great degree; as a strong powder or tincture; a strong decoction; strong tea; strong coffee.

11. Full of spirit; intoxicating; as strong liquors.

12. Affecting the sight forcibly; as strong colors.

13. Affecting the taste forcibly; as the strong flavor of onions.

14. Affecting the smell powerfully; as a strong scent.

15. Not of easy digestion; solid; as strong meat. Hebrews 5.

16. Well established; firm; not easily overthrown or altered; as a custom grown strong by time.

17. Violent; vehement; earnest. Who in the day of his flesh, when he offered up prayers with strong crying and tears–Hebrews 5.

18. Able; furnished with abilities. I was stronger in prophecy than in criticism.

19. Having great force of mind, of intellect or of any faculty; as a man of strong powers of mind; a man of a strong mind or intellect; a man of strong memory, judgment or imagination.

20. Having great force; comprising much in few words. Like her sweet voice is thy harmonious song, as high, as sweet, as easy and as strong.

21. Bright; glaring; vivid; as a strong light.

22. Powerful to the extent of force named; as an army ten thousand strong.

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

DRINK, n.

Liquor to be swallowed; any fluid to be taken into the stomach, for quenching thirst, or for medicinal purposes; as water, wine, beer, cider, decoctions, &c.

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

LIQ’UOR, n. lik’or [L. liquor.]

A liquid or fluid substance. [See Liquid.] Liquor is a word of general signification, extending to water, milk, blood, say, juice, &c.; but its most common application is to spirituous fluids, whether distilled or fermented, to decoctions, solutions, tinctures.

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

WINE, n. [Gr.]

1. The fermented juice of grapes; as the wine of the Madeira grape; the wine of Burgundy or Oporto.

2. The juice of certain fruits, prepared with sugar, spirits, &c.; as currant wine; gooseberry wine.

3. Intoxication. Noah awoke from his wine. Genesis 9.

4. Drinking. They that tarry long at the wine. Proverbs 23. Corn and wine, in Scripture, are put for all kinds of necessaries for subsistence. Psalm Bread and wine, in the Lords supper, are symbols of the body and blood of Christ.

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

FERMENTA’TION, n. [L. fermentatio.] The sensible internal motion of the constituent particles of animal and vegetable substances, occasioned by a certain degree of heat and moisture, and accompanied by an extrication of gas and heat. Fermentation is followed by a change of properties in the substances fermented, arising from new combinations of their principles. It may be defined, in its most general sense, any spontaneous change which takes place in animal or vegetable substances, after life has ceased. It is of three kinds, vinous, acetous, and putrefactive. The term is also applied to other processes, as the panary fermentation, or the raising of bread; but it is limited, by some authors, to the vinous and acetous fermentations, which terminate in the production of alcohol or vinegar. Fermentation differs from effervescence. The former is confined to animal and vegetable substances; the latter is applicable to mineral substances. The former is spontaneous; the latter produced by the mixture of bodies.

(taken from http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/fermentation)

Here are the verses in the Word of Wisdom that mention these words:

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—that inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies…. And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. (D&C 89: 4-7, 9)

The verse summary for verses 1-9 states, “Use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks proscribed.” This is not entirely true. The word proscribe means “to forbid or condemn as harmful or unlawful: to prohibit.” Only hot drinks are prohibited, whereas wine, strong drinks and tobacco are given lawful uses.

When I was a young teacher, I remember my teacher’s quorum adviser explaining to us one Sunday how “pure wine of the grape” meant grape juice. As nice a guy as he was, he was incorrect in that assumption. When the Lord uses the term wine in this section, he is referring to the fermented juice of grapes, and of grapes only, not other types of wines, which is why he clarifies his statement with “yea, pure wine of the grape.” So, we are permitted to use wine, meaning actual alcoholic wine, when partaking of the sacrament, but only if we make the wine ourselves. All other uses of it are prohibited.

The Lord states that strong drinks are for the washing of our bodies. Most people interpret that to mean that alcohol cleans and disinfects, thus is used in hospitals prior to injecting someone with a hypodermic needle, etc. The word alcohol existed at the time of this revelation, but the Lord didn’t use it, instead he used the words “strong drinks,” such as vodka, rum, etc.

Not all alcohols are the same. There is ethyl alcohol (drinking alcohol), methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) and isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol). Strong drinks contain ethanol (ethyl alcohol), whereas the alcohol used to clean skin in preparation for an injection is isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol).

The use of vodka or rum to wash the body gets the skin squeaky clean, removes dead skin and dirt and eliminates many odors. It leaves the skin feeling clean and looking shiny. It requires very little liquid to clean the entire body and saves a ton of water that would otherwise be needed to take a shower or bath. It is can be stored indefinitely and is not messy, requiring only a rag to rub onto the skin. I know from experience the wisdom of using strong drinks to wash our bodies.

If you still haven’t tried using strong drinks to wash your body, I encourage you to go out and buy a bottle of vodka and test the wisdom of the Lord. You may be pleasantly surprised. Plus, it’ll make for some interesting Word of Wisdom conversations when visitors open your cupboard and see the bottle there.

Next Word of Wisdom article: What the Word of Wisdom says and what it doesn’t say

Previous Word of Wisdom article: The interpolation of a footnote

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Title of Insufferable, Self-Righteous Prigs

“In memory of our dedicated conformity and unlimited capacity for suffering boredom, and for sitting in endless meetings, and for barren minds, and for getting up at 5 a.m. to write a bad book instead of at 9 a.m. to write a good book, and for zeal without knowledge.”

Thanks goes to scottjarvie, Hugh Nibley and Moroni for the inspiration behind this post. Feel free to create this as a banner, fasten it upon the end of a pole, go forth among the people and wave it in the air. Or print it onto t-shirts, posters, flyers or business cards and pass them out. Let me know if anyone flocks to it.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist