Note: I found this essay while surfing the Internet this past week. I took it from the mormon_anarchy Yahoo group. Wake_Up posted it there on Sun Oct 8, 2000, as the fourth message and now I’m re-posting it here in a slightly edited fashion (I tried to correct some typos). I have also re-posted three more of his essays. (See Why Father is an Anarchist, What the Priesthood Is, and Agency: The Single Principle for a Continuous War.)
Please keep in mind that I did not write this article. I tried to contact the author, (whose real name, according to Stirling D. Allen, is Jahnihah Wrede), but my email was returned as “Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender.” If you want more information about him or his views, I suggest you visit his (now defunct) web site, which you can view by using the Way Back Machine.
Congruence vs. Obedience
It is self-evident to any lover of free agency that obedience to law is wholly Luciferian.
You are wanting to discontinue reading, aren’t you?
It’s totally backwards, right?
It’s so backwards that this is what the definition of something being self-evident means, correct?
That something is so obviously erroneous that to continue to give it space is a waste of time, yes?
It is obvious that if someone came along and proposed a system of governance that required a fabricated punishment beyond the natural consequences for any type of infraction or breach, you would recognize it as being a fraud filled with agony under compulsion and even tending to abusiveness, right ?
It also would be glaringly apparent that if this same fellow proposed such a system no one would volunteer into it, for to force them into such a system would be giving away the true intention and nature of this fellow, OK?
So, to make a statement like the one at the top of this article, it is self-evident WHO the author is, right ?
The author is Jesus Christ Himself and He said it in D&C 121 :34-40 and to Ancient Israel about the 10 Commandments, and most specifically in 1 Timothy 1:9:
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers…”
Breathe Neo, just breathe… Heck of a way to start out, huh ? It’s OK. A very wise man I know and love said,
“Put your preconceived notions on the shelf for a while, and after you have considered this info without bias, if you like you can pick up the old perceptions right back off the shelf where you left them.”
I don’t mean to preach anything new to you. I only wish to clarify something eternal that we somehow allowed to escape our view.
We define different words with their own meanings even though they may be very similar to one another. We might describe someone as ‘eccentric’ and another as ‘insane’; or ‘zealous’ from ‘fanatical’. Indeed it is what the whole of being ‘politically correct’ is founded upon. Most people have a good understanding of what the terms ‘law’ and ‘obedience’ mean, and also of ‘order’ and ‘congruence’.
There is literally a world of difference between ‘law’ and ‘order’, and between ‘obedience’ and ‘congruence’.
Let us take the typical understanding of ‘obedience’ found in the scriptures. Of course, most Christians believe that if you are not obedient, you are going to wind up in Hell, but obedient to what? The law of God, of course. So, to be obedient, you have to know what God’s law is. Where is the law of God found?
Some Christians believe that the 10 Commandments are the law of God, and others believe that The Beatitudes of Jesus on the Mount of Olives is God’s law, and others say both. I don’t have to convince you one way or the other to make my point. The mere fact is that as long as there is a ‘law’, then it is of NO EFFECT without a consequent punishment. Do the ‘laws’ of God assert a punishment? If you believe God has laws, then you must concede that punishments follow for breaches of the law, and rewards or blessings occur for obedience to the law, right?
Let us review Isaiah for a moment. Isaiah tells us of a War in Heaven that occurred as a result of the Son of the Morning’s plan of salvation through compulsion to save every soul was rejected for Father’s chosen plan of salvation from His other Son to save every soul via free choice. It is self-evident that the single premise for the War wasn’t over going to Heaven or Hell, but over the freedom to choose which plan to be saved under – that of compulsion to do righteousness, or that of freedom to sin and to repent.
In speaking about the ‘authority to act in the name of God’, a.k.a. the Priesthood (PH), Father has said in no uncertain terms that ‘…ANY degree of compulsion is cause for immediate withdrawal of PH.’ and that such a man was ‘…left unto himself… to be an enemy and fight against God.’ It is D&C 121: 34-40.
It seems that as long as you want to infringe on another’s agency in any degree, you are totally out of sorts with the plan of salvation of Jesus Christ, and His PH. How then can we justify ‘obedience’ to ‘law’ when it requires us to exact a punishment upon our fellowman for his ‘disobedience’? Where did we get the idea that ‘obedience’ means what we typically believe it means? Where did we get the idea that ‘law’ was an excuse to exert dominion over another without becoming an enemy to God?
Have we not heard so much of ‘obedience unto God’s law’ that we are all afraid of going to Hell? Lots of people are going to Hell then, huh? In fact we are so afraid of going to Hell, that we blindly obey the law without giving thought for the truth – that God ceases to BE GOD if any degree of compulsion is used to get us sinners to repent, right?
What kind of God would fabricate a law, assert some punishment in addition to natural consequence, and enforce it by compulsion (else the law would be of no effect), and claim to be Just when it contradicts His own explanation of how the Powers of Heaven and the Rights of the PH operate??? A Luciferian ‘god’ would. A light should have just gone on. What was self-evident at the top, is now taking a serious beating in your mind if you are paying attention.
Is it too far fetched to say that God is lawless right now? It would at least keep Him from violating the PH and the Powers of Heaven they are inseparably connected to, huh? But, is God an Anarchist?
Evidently the PH has no beginning of days, or end of days; no mother or no father. In short it is eternal. It also is inseparably connected to the Powers of Heaven, which God obviously has at His disposal provided He doesn’t exercise any degree of unrighteous dominion and fall from Godhood. This means that indeed there is an ‘order’ to everything that is eternal, but it isn’t what we have corrupted into ‘law’, and ‘obedience’ isn’t required, but ‘congruence’ is. Apparently, suffering the natural consequence of being incongruent is enough ‘punishment’ in God’s reality. No fabrication of abusive punishments are required to drive fear into the hearts of men so via this compulsion they ALL are saved.
So, what’s with all the fear about Hell? Let me define ‘Hell’ here as merely ‘separation from Father’ regardless of its degree or the imaginations of men. If one truly loved God, separation from Him is ‘Hell’ just as being separated from a spouse who has died is Hell regardless of the length of time of separation.
In the same manner are we to remain separated from God until we become congruent to His nature and attributes, which doesn’t include exerting laws and punishments via compulsion upon our fellow men, a.k.a.’obedience’. We either are seen as He is seen, and are known as He is known, or we remain separated from Him to some degree regardless of our level of ‘obedience’. As long as we play the part rather than Being true to the core, then we are deceiving ourselves and can only achieve something less than exaltation. It naturally would behoove us to come to a complete understanding of who God is, and what His nature and attributes are so we might KNOW if we could actually be happy living as He lives. Good thing Joseph gave the King Follett Discourse.
Wake_Up
Next Guest Contributor article: Agency: The Single Principle of a Continuous War
Previous Guest Contributor article: What The Priesthood Is
Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist
5 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
I can’t believe there are no comments to this post.
What an eye-opener. When wicked people are destroyed, it is because God leaves them to themselves, neither helping one nor the other.
What about the flood? I’ve heard that God did it to prevent spirits from being born to atrociously wicked people. What about the destructions by fire, earthquakes, and so forth in our day?
Are all of these things natural consequences of people’s wickedness? The Pearl of Great Price speaks as if the earth is very much alive, and in pain when wickedness is upon her faith. I wonder if the flood and the current/future disasters are the result of the earth literally having a nervous breakdown because she can’t bear the gross wickedness?
Does anyone have any ideas about this?
My mother rarely punished me, and never was prone to hitting or vile words, yet I would have obeyed her more than anyone I feared. I did what she said out of love for her. Someone I feared, I would have tried to find ways around.
There’s really something to think about in this post.
P.S. When I said this > “When wicked people are destroyed, it is because God leaves them to themselves, neither helping one nor the other,” it is something I have known for years. The idea first came to me because my mother taught it to me.
Toni:
C.S. Lewis wrote:
So I agree with you there.
Also, you asked:
I’d answer:
Your Father which is in heaven … maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
and
Jesus answering said unto them: Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
and
h\His disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Hm. So, it sounds like, “Those people weren’t wicked, but if you don’t repent, something like that will happen to you.” So I wonder if one could tell the difference between the two. I expect, though, that the message is really, “Don’t judge someone else if bad things happen to them. Worry about your own behavior.”
Which I agree with — I don’t like to hear people say, Oh there was an earthquake in such-and-such a place b/c the people there are so immoral. I have never observed a strong correlation between morality and natural disasters.